The Government order that the collection of sales tax due under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the inter-State sale of rubber by rubber planters in Kerala during the period prior to 1st June, 1978, shall be waived.(By order of the Governor)
C. P. Nair
Secretary to Government.'
Counsel also placed reliance on the decision reported in Nand Lal and Sons v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner  52 STC 249 and contended that the ratio of the said decision is fully applicable here also and in this view of the matter the ground on which the refund of Central sales tax paid was refused and contained in the following words in exhibit P-12 is clear by a legal error and exhibit P-12 deserves to be quashed,
'With reference to your letters cited requesting for the refund of C.S.T. paid for the period 1970-1971 to 1974-1975 it is informed that you are not eligible for the refund of tax already paid since the Government have only waived the collection of C.S.T. prior to 1-6-1978 as per G.O. Ms. 48/79/TD dated 21-3-79.'
8. In my opinion, the ratio of the decision reported in Nand Lal and Sons v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner is clearly applicable to this case. The headnote to the reported decision itself is instructive and it is to the following effect:
'The petitioner, a dealer in cotton seeds, was assessed to tax under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, on the purchase turnover of cotton seeds for the period 14th May, 1964, to 27th February, 1969, for which period a direction was issued by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner to the effect that no tax on cotton seeds be realised. The petitioner having already paid the tax made an application for the refund of that amount, which was refused by the sales tax authorities. On a writ petition:
Held, that in the face of the direction of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, the petitioner would be entitled to the refund. To deny the relief to the petitioner, besides other legal infirmities, would also amount to discrimination inasmuch as it would be putting persons who had paid the tax in a worse position than those who did not care to do so.'
I agree with the said decision and hold that on this ground also the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
9. In the result, I quash exhibit P-12 dated 16th June, 1980, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Special Circle, Alleppey. I hereby further direct the 6th respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Special Circle, Alleppey, to refund the amount of Rs. 2,80,512.10 to the petitioner, within four weeks from today. The original petition is allowed with costs.