TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1957 (1) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mehsana assessed the assessees to sales tax for the period between 1st May, 1949, and 31st March, 1951. Under the assessment order made the assessees were liable to pay Rs. 14,185-8-0 as sales tax. The Sales Tax Officer gave credit for Rs. 13,925-11-9 which had already been paid by the assessees as tax and called upon them to pay the balance of Rs. 259-12-3. On 11th December, 1952, the balance of Rs. 259-12-3 was paid by the assessees. Against the order of assessment no appeal was preferred by the assessees. It appears that about this time there was pending an appeal [The State of Bombay v. The United Motors (India) Ltd.[1953] 4 S.T.C. 133.] before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in which a question as to the competence of the Legisla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... On 13th May, 1955, the assessees preferred a revision application to the Collector of Sales Tax. That application was rejected on 29th July, 1955, and against that order a revision application was filed to the Sales Tax Tribunal. On the assumption that the order challenged by appeal to the Assistant Collector was the order refusing to grant refund on the ground that the application was not in the prescribed form and on the view that the Assistant Collector and the Collector were in error in so holding, the Tribunal by order dated 16th April, 1956, set aside the order of the Collector and the Assistant Collector and directed that the applications for refund submitted by the assessees be inquired into and decided by the Sales Tax Officer in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....952. It is clear from the memo of appeal filed against the judgment of the Assistant Collector that the appeal was only filed against the order dated 28th November, 1952, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Patan, for the assessment period between 1st May, 1949, and 31st March, 1951. It is conceded before us that there was no appeal before the Assistant Collector against the order refusing to grant refund. Prima facie therefore it was apparent that the Sales Tax Tribunal was incompetent to enter upon an enquiry whether the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer refusing to grant refund was or was not a proper order. But as certain questions have been referred to us on the application by the Collector, we may not be justified in taking a technic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amount due from him under the Act cannot be disputed. But the question arises whether in claiming refund the dealer is entitled to call upon the Collector to ignore his previous judgment assessing liability to tax. If a dealer has made payment of tax every quarter as he is required by law to do and if at the final assessment it appears that his liability to pay tax is for an amount less than the amount actually paid, the case will clearly fall within section 13. Similarly, if by an order passed by an appellate authority or a revising authority the tax payable by the dealer is declared to be less than the amount actually paid by the dealer in pursuance of the order of assessment evidently the Collector is entitled to pass an order for re....