Rectification and declared goods reimbursement principles: omitted refund claims, no acquiescence bar, and no need for full gross CST payment.

Rectification under the Assam VAT Act was treated as valid where the original assessment omitted to consider a reimbursement claim and the omission amounted to an apparent error, not a review. The refund claim was also not barred by delay, laches or acquiescence because there had been no express rejection of the claim in the assessment order, and silence could not be treated as adverse determination. On declared goods, payment of the full gross Central Sales Tax was not a condition precedent for reimbursement of local tax where the dealer had complied with a lawful exemption regime and CST had been paid in the manner required by that regime. The reimbursement claim was therefore to be processed under the declared goods and refund provisions.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the rectification of the audit assessment orders under the rectification power was valid and based on a mistake apparent on the face of the record; (ii) whether the refund claim could be rejected on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence; (iii) whether payment of the full Central Sales Tax was a condition precedent for reimbursement of local tax under the declared goods provision.

Issue (i): whether the rectification of the audit assessment orders under the rectification power was valid and based on a mistake apparent on the face of the record

Analysis: The assessment orders had been silent on the reimbursement claim, although the petitioner had moved for refund and the governing law had already been settled by the binding decisions on declared goods and inter-State sale of petroleum coke. A non-consideration of binding precedent constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The rectification power under the Assam Value Added Tax Act was confined to such apparent errors and was not being used as a review power. Since the original assessment orders omitted to deal with the reimbursement issue and the later rectifications merely aligned the assessments with settled law, the exercise fell within the statutory rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The rectification was valid and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether the refund claim could be rejected on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence

Analysis: The petitioner had not accepted any adverse determination of its reimbursement claim in the original assessment, because no specific rejection of that claim had been made. Mere silence in the assessment orders could not be treated as rejection, and a party cannot be branded a fence-sitter where its statutory claim was not expressly decided against it. The doctrine of acquiescence requires assent to an adverse action with knowledge of the right, while delay and laches operate differently. On the facts, neither doctrine defeated the claim, and the petitioner was entitled to seek parity with similarly situated dealers.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be denied on the grounds of delay, laches or acquiescence.

Issue (iii): whether payment of the full Central Sales Tax was a condition precedent for reimbursement of local tax under the declared goods provision

Analysis: The statutory text requires that tax be paid under the Central Sales Tax law on the inter-State sale of the declared goods, but it does not say that the entire tax must be discharged in full in every case. Here, the petitioner was operating under a tax exemption scheme that lawfully limited the CST burden to 1% while granting 99% remission, and the petitioner had complied with that regime. The concepts of levy, liability, assessment and actual collection are distinct, and the entitlement to reimbursement under the declared goods provision could not be defeated merely because the petitioner did not pay the unreduced gross amount of CST.

Conclusion: Full payment of CST was not a condition precedent, and the petitioner remained entitled to reimbursement.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection orders were unsustainable, the reimbursement claims had to be processed in accordance with the declared goods and refund provisions, and the petitioners obtained relief on all material issues raised.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer has paid local tax on declared goods, later sold those goods in inter-State trade with CST paid under the applicable statutory exemption regime, and the assessment order did not expressly reject the reimbursement claim, the authority may rectify the omission as an apparent error, and reimbursement cannot be denied on the basis of delay, acquiescence, or absence of full gross CST payment.

---