3,588/1/9.
2,238/0/6.
But the Additional Collector of sales tax in revision revised the levy to some extent and, ordered a refund of Rs.
But the sales tax officer did number give effect to that order.
23,806/3/6 was levied on the appellants.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 29, and December 2, 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
The Revenue took up the matter in reference to the High Court but that reference was rejected.
641 of 1962 under Art.
T. Desai and I. N. Shroff, for the intervener.
19 1 f of the Constitution, we have number thought it necessary to examine the other companytentions raised in the appeal.
In appeal, the Assistant Collector of sale tax allowed the appellants claim in part and ordered a refund or.
2,256/2/6.
During the period April 1, 1950 to March 31, 1951 the appel lants effected various sales outside the State of Bombay.
That amount was paid to the assessees.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In appeal, the order of the sales tax officer was affirmed by the Assistant Collector of sales,tax.
641 of 1962.
The tax levied in respect of that turnover was Rs.
But yet the sales tax officer assessed the turnover relating to those sales.
During the period January 26, 1950 to March 31, 1950, the appellants effected various sales outside the State of Bombay.
That officer by his order dated November 1, 1958 granted further relief by ordering refund of an additional sum of Rs.
But even before they moved the Tribunal in revision, the Additional Collector of sales tax by his letter dated May 17, 1958, informed the appellants that unless they furnished to the sales tax officer proof of their having refunded the amount paid to them in pursuance of his order to the purchasers within a period of three months from the date of that numberice, the same would be liable to be forfeited under s. 12A 4 The Tribunal by its order dated November 26, 1958, allowed the claim of the appellants in full and directed the refund of an addi tional sum of Rs.
The facts material for the purpose of deciding the question formulated above, are these The appellants are dealers registered tinder the Act carrying on business in art silk, companyton and hand loom cloth.
No being satisfied with the relief obtained, the appellants went up in revision to the Additional Collector of sales tax.
The turn, over relating to those sales was also brought to tax by the sales tax officer and in that companynection a tax of Rs.
12,154/15/ but at the same time he informed them that that amount would be forfeited to the State Government if number refunded to the purchasers from whom the same had been companylected.
As the Additional Collector did number accept the appellants claim in full, they went up in revision to the Tribunal.
M. Hazarnavis, K. L. Hathi and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents.
Not being satisfied with the order of the Additional Collector of sales tax, the appellants took up the matter in revision to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
286 1 a of the Constitution, they were outside the reach of the Act.
4,494/3/9.
As those sales were protected by Art.
R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant.
126 of 1966.
