R.M. Sahai, J.
1. At the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, the following question of law was referred for the opinion of this Court:
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, was right in law in making reimbursement of tax to the tune of Rs. 12,613.59
2. The assessee made purchases of oil-seeds both from registered and unregistered dealers. Under the State Act, tax was leviable on first purchases. The assessee paid tax on purchases made from unregistered dealers, but in respect of purchases made from registered dealers, as tax was already paid, it was not required to pay any tax although it being the first purchase tax was leviable on it. It was thereafter sold and under Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act a tax of Rs. 12,613.59 was imposed on the assessee on the turnover of inter-State sales amounting to Rs. 4,20,452.50, which was paid by him. An application for reimbursement under Section 29-B of the U.P. Act was made which was allowed in part only as the Sales Tax Officer was of the view that as in respect of tax-paid purchases, that is purchases made from registered dealers, the assessee was not entitled to refund. The order was maintained in appeal but the revising authority set aside the order and allowed the application on the finding that Section 29-B permits a person effecting inter-State sales to be entitled to reimbursement.
3. On these facts, the question is whether the assessee was entitled to be reimbursed in respect of tax paid by the registered dealers from whom the assessee had made purchases. The answer to the question depends on the construction of Section 29-B added by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1973. The section reads as under:
29-B. Reimbursement in respect of declared goods. -- (1) Where any tax has been levied under this Act in respect of the sale or purchase of any goods referred to in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956), and such goods are subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, and tax has been paid under the said Central Act in respect of the sale of such goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the tax levied under this Act may, on an application being made in writing to the assessing authority within six months from the date on which the tax was so paid or the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1973, whichever is later, be reimbursed to the person making such sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce....
4. The essential requirements for the applicability of the section are:
(i) Tax should be levied on sale or purchase under the U.P. Act;
(ii) it should be on goods referred under Section 14 of the Central Act, i. e., declared goods;
(iii) such goods should be sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce;
(iv) application for refund should be made within six months of payment of tax;
(v) reimbursement shall be to the person making inter-State trade or commerce.
It is apparent that the right to claim reimbursement has been conferred only on the person making inter-State trade or commerce. It is not disputed that the assessee had made purchases of goods referred to in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act on which tax was levied under the State Act and the goods were subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce by the assessee who paid the tax under the Central Sale Tax Act. As all the ingredients of the section were satisfied, it was the assessee who was entitled for the reimbursement.
5. It has been argued by the learned standing counsel that the very word 'reimbursement' indicates that the person who paid the tax is entitled for it. According to him, it is inherent in the scheme of reimbursement that the tax levied and paid should be refunded to the person who paid it and not to any other person. He maintains that on the finding recorded by the Additional Judge (Revisions) that the tax was paid by the registered dealers and not by the assessee, he was not entitled to any refund under this section. The argument has no substance. It is not open to legislate by reading words, by whom the tax was paid. In view of the unambiguous language it would be idle to contend that merely because tax has been paid by someone else, the reimbursement cannot be made to the person making the sale. If the argument would have been correct, the legislature would have used the word 'reimbursement' to the person making such sale and by whom the tax has been paid. In the absence of these words, the acceptance of the argument by the learned standing counsel would amount to legislating and adding some words in the section, which are not there.
6. Reliance was placed on Salik Ram Lalloo Ram, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1973 U.P.T.C. 15, in support of the submission that the refund of excess amount under Section 29-B can be made only to a person by whom the tax has been paid. The decision was based on the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance (17 of 1972). Section 29-B of the Ordinance ran as under:
29-B. Refund in respect of declared goods. -- (1) Where any tax has been levied under this Act in respect of the sale or purchase of any goods referred to in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956), and such goods are subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the dealer by whom the tax so levied was paid may, within six months from the date on which the tax was so paid or the date on which the goods were so sold or the date of promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, whichever is the latest of such dates, make an application in writing to the assessing authority for the refund of the tax....
7. It is obvious that the section, as proposed in the Ordinance, contemplated reimbursement to a person by whom tax was paid. This scheme, however, did not find favour and when the Ordinance was replaced by Act No. 1 of 1973, the section replaced was as quoted above. The difference in the language of the section as contained in the Ordinance and as replaced in the Act makes it further clear that the earlier proposal to refund the amount only to a person by whom the tax was paid was given up arid it was provided to be given to a person by whom the inter-State trade or commerce has been made. By Section 31 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 1, the operation of Section 29-B has been made retrospective from 1st October, 1958. The amendment was, therefore, fully applicable to the payment of tax in the year 1969-70.
8. In the result, this revision fails and is dismissed. The assessee shall be entitled to its cost, which is assessed at Rs. 300. The fee of the standing counsel is assessed at Rs. 100.