9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on January 10, 1980 and therefore entitled to exemption from payment of tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the KGST Act) for a period of five years from January 10, 1980 to January 9, 1985. Accordingly the petitioner was given the benefit of the exemption based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 1. The petitioner claims simil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re exhibits PI to P5. 2.. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition, exhibit P6, before the assessing authority, stating that his turnover from January 10, 1980 to January 9, 1985 was exempt totally under the CST Act and therefore he was entitled to refund of the tax paid which he alleged, had been illegally collected. That application was rejected by the assessing authority by the proceedings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts actually point to the contrary. It is seen from the proceedings, exhibit P7, of the assessing authority rejecting the claim for refund that the petitioner had claimed even on the earlier occasion, before the Appellate Tribunal that his turnover was exempt from payment of tax under the CST Act by virtue of the Government order exempting the turnover of such small-scale industrial units set up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t them forward before the authorities. He pursued the matter right up to the Tribunal and lost before it. The petitioner cannot therefore lay claim to a cause of action on an alleged mistake of law suffered by him at the time he made payment of the tax due under the CST Act. When he was fully conscious of his rights and urged his points and lost, it cannot be said that he was labouring under a mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
