9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excess of the tax liability determined in appeal and in the alternative prayed that the excess may be set off against the tax liability of subsequent years. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the application on the ground that it was filed more than twelve months after the date of the appellate order and was, therefore, barred by limitation under section 29 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The respondent applied in revision and the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax held that although the prayer for refund was barred by the limitation prescribed by section 29, the prayer for adjustment of the excess against the tax liability of subsequent years was wrongly refused as barred by time. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the judge (Revisions) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the money. The first proviso to section 29 prescribes the period of limitation for making such application for refund, and the period is twenty-four months from the date on which the relevant assessment order was passed. That would be a case where a claim for refund is made and it is found upon assessment that the dealer has already deposited in advance an amount in excess of the tax liability found due upon assessment. Where the tax liability is found in appeal, reference or revision to be less than the amount assessed and the dealer is, therefore, entitled to a refund, the period of limitation for making an application for refund is twelve months of the final order passed in appeal, revision or reference. There is no doubt that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to a dealer with the adjustment of such an amount towards a liability outstanding against him. In the one case the dealer applies for the repayment of the money into his hands. In the other, he applies that the amount instead of being repaid to him be credited towards the liability outstanding against him. We are of opinion that the subject-matter of the first proviso cannot be confused with what is contemplated within the second proviso. The two matters are distinct and separate and, therefore, the period of limitation prescribed under the first proviso cannot govern the matter of adjustment contemplated by the second proviso. We, therefore, answer the question referred to this court in the negative. The respondent is entitled to his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
