- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Mysore And Others v. Mallick Hashim & Co. .
Factual and Procedural Background
The judgment consolidates three appeals by special leave (Civil Appeals Nos. 2215-2217 of 1969). Two arose from writ petitions filed by dealers in hides and skins, and the third from a sales-tax revision petition filed by a dealer in copra and coconuts. All the dealers had paid purchase tax on goods that are “declared goods” under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and later sold those goods in the course of inter-State trade. They sought refunds of the tax already paid. The State resisted the refund claims on the grounds that the applications were (i) not filed within the time-limit prescribed by Rule 39-A(2) and (3) framed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and (ii) in two instances, not made in the prescribed form.
The Mysore High Court held Rule 39-A ultra vires. The State of Mysore appealed to the Supreme Court, invoking Article 136 of the Constitution.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Rule 39-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957—particularly sub-rules (2) and (3), which impose strict time and form requirements for refund applications—is ultra vires the rule-making power granted under Section 5(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and inconsistent with the safeguards contained in Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
- Whether the time-limit fixed by Rule 39-A(3) is so unreasonable as to be invalid, thereby defeating the statutory right of dealers to obtain refunds of tax on declared goods sold in inter-State trade.
Arguments of the Parties
Dealers (Respondents before the Supreme Court)
- Rule 39-A, by prescribing an unduly short limitation period and rigid procedural requirements, effectively nullifies the refund right conferred by Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and Section 5(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act.
- The rule therefore exceeds the scope of the State Government’s rule-making power and should be struck down.
State of Mysore (Appellant)
- Contended that the dealers were not entitled to refunds because their applications were filed after the deadline stipulated in Rule 39-A(2) & (3), and in two cases were not in the prescribed form.
- Implicitly defended the validity of Rule 39-A as a legitimate exercise of delegated legislative power.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to delve into the broader question of whether Rule 39-A is ultra vires in its entirety. Instead, it focused on the reasonableness of sub-rules (2) and (3):
- Sub-rule (3) requires that a refund application be filed no later than the due date for submitting the sales-tax return. In Mysore, an annual return must be filed within 30 days of the financial year’s end; in other States quarterly returns may be required. The Court noted that, in practice, this could reduce the limitation period to as little as 30 days—even for sales made on the last day of the year—rendering the statutory refund right illusory.
- The Court characterised the rule as an “attempt to deny the dealers the refund to which they are entitled under the law or at any rate to make the enforcement of that right unduly difficult.”
- Because these sub-rules were deemed “wholly unreasonable,” they could not be sustained.
- Given this conclusion, and exercising its discretion under Article 136, the Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s decision.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED – The Supreme Court dismissed all three appeals and left undisturbed the High Court’s decision invalidating the impugned provisions of Rule 39-A.
Implications: The result preserves the dealers’ statutory right to refunds without being barred by the strict time and form requirements of Rule 39-A(2) & (3). The judgment emphasises that delegated legislation imposing procedural conditions must not make enforcement of substantive statutory rights unduly difficult. No broader doctrinal precedent was expressly set beyond this clarification.
K.S Hegde, J.— These are appeals by special leave. The first two appeals, namely, Civil Appeals Nos. 2215 and 2216 of 1969 arise from the decision of the Mysore High Court in two writ petitions filed by a dealer in hides and skins whereas the third appeal, namely, Civil Appeal No. 2217 of 1969, arises from the judgment of the same court in a sales tax revision petition. In all these petitions the only question that arises for decision is whether Rule 39-A of the rules framed under the Mysore Sates Tax Act, 1957, is ultra vires the rule-making power.
2. Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, provides thus:
“Every sales tax law of a State shall, insofar as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, be subject to the following restrictions, and conditions, namely—
(a) the tax payable under that law in respect of any sale or purchase of such goods inside the State shall not exceed three per cent of the sale or purchase price thereof, and such tax shall not be levied at more than one stage;
(b) where a tax has been levied under that law in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any declared goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the tax so levied shall be refunded to such person in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be provided in any law in force in that State.”
3. Section 5(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, provides:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a tax under this Act shall be levied in respect of the sale or purchase of any of the declared goods mentioned in column (2) of the Fourth Schedule at the rate and only at the point specified in the corresponding entries of columns (4) and (3) of the said Schedule on the dealer liable to tax under this Act on his taxable turnover of sales or purchases in each year relating to such goods:
Provided that where tax has been paid in respect of the sale or purchase of any of the declared goods under this sub-section and such goods are subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the tax paid under this Act shall be refunded to such person in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.”
4. Apparently in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, the Government of Mysore framed Rule 39-A. That rule reads:
“Refund of tax in the case of certain types of sales of declared goods.— (1) The tax levied under sub-section (4) of Section 5 in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any goods specified therein shall, if such goods are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, be refunded in the manner and subject to the conditions prescribed in this rule to the dealer who has made the inter-State sale and has paid tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956), in respect of such sales.
(2) Every such dealer who claims a refund under the rules, shall within the time allowed in sub-rule (3), submit to the assessing authority a statement in Form 4-A.
(3) The statement referred to in sub-rule (2) shall be submitted so as to reach the assessing authority not later than the date on which the return of turnover for the period in respect of the sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce referred to in sub-rule (1) is due:
Provided that in respect of any period prior to the publication of this rule, the statement referred to in sub-rule (2) shall be submitted to the assessing authority within a period of three months from the date of publication of this rule in the Official Gazette, if the due date for the submission of the return of turnover for the said period has already elapsed.
(4) The burden of proving the claim preferred shall be on the dealer.
(5) On receipt of the statement in Form 4-A, the assessing authority shall, if it is satisfied after such scrutiny of the accounts and after such enquiry as it considers necessary that the claim is admissible, pass an order refunding the tax.
(6) If the statement submitted appears to the assessing authority to be incorrect, incomplete or otherwise not in order, it shall, after making such enquiry as it considers necessary and after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit.”
5. As mentioned earlier the petitioner in the two writ petitions are dealers in hides and skins whereas the petitioner in the sales tax revision petition before the High Court is a dealer in copra and coconuts. It is not disputed that hides and skins as well as copra and coconuts are declared goods under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is also not disputed that at the time of purchase of those goods the dealers in question had paid the purchase tax. Further it is admitted that these goods were sold in the course of inter-State sale transactions. It is not denied that the petitioners had a right to apply for refund of the taxes paid by them but the objections raised by the State in those refund applications were not filed within the period mentioned in Rule 39-A(2) and (3) and further in two cases it is contended that the applications were not made in the prescribed form. The High Court has taken the view that Rule 39-A is ultra vires the rule-making power. It has opined that the rules made under Section 5(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, are those which must relate to the manner and conditions under which refund has to be made and such a rule cannot in substance deprive the dealer of the right to get refund to which be is entitled to under Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as well as Section 5(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. We have not thought it necessary to go into that question as, in our opinion, sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 39-A are wholly unreasonable rules and consequently these cannot be sustained. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 39-A provides that before a person is entitled to refund under Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as well as under Section 5(4) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, he must have made the refund application within the time before which be should have submitted his sales tax return. In many States the dealers have to submit quarterly returns. Under Rule 18 framed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, we are informed that a dealer will have to submit his annual return within 30 days of the end of the financial year. That means even if a sale in the course of inter-State trade has been made on March 31 of a year, the refund application will have to be made within 30 days from that date. The position will be worse still if the dealer is required to submit quarterly returns. The learned counsel for the State was not in a position to tell us whether in the Mysore State the dealers have to file quarterly returns. In our opinion the impugned rule is merely an attempt to deny the dealers the refund to which they are entitled under the law or at any rate to make the enforcement of that right unduly difficult.
6. In our judgment this is not a fit case where we should interfere in exercise of our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. The respondents are not represented before us. Hence there will be no order as to costs.
Alert