Road tax on Cutch at Kattha rate lacked authority; binding administrative classification justified refund for the pre-amendment period.

Road tax collected on Cutch at the same rate as Kattha for the period before 17.01.2002 was without lawful authority because the State had already treated Cutch and Kattha as distinct commodities and said the same rate could not apply given their different market prices. That administrative view was binding on the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, and the appellate authority could not deny refund by relying on an unproduced letter of 20.01.2003. The levy and retention of tax at the Kattha rate were therefore unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to refund of the tax collected for the relevant period.

---

---

Issues: Whether road tax collected on Cutch at the same rate as Kattha for the period prior to 17.01.2002 was legally payable and, if not, whether the petitioner was entitled to refund.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether Cutch and Kattha could be treated as one taxable commodity for road tax purposes before the amendment of 17.01.2002. The Court noted that the State Government's letter dated 20.07.2001 had expressly treated Cutch and Kattha as different products and stated that the same rate of tax could not be imposed on both because of the wide difference in their market prices. That administrative decision was binding on the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The appellate authority, instead of applying that binding view, refused refund merely on the basis of an alleged letter dated 20.01.2003, which was not produced and was not even available in the office when sought under the Right to Information Act. The levy and retention of tax on Cutch at the Kattha rate, therefore, lacked lawful authority.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount collected as road tax on Cutch for the relevant period, and the orders rejecting the refund were unsustainable.

---