Satyeshwar Roy, J.

1. The facts involved in both these writ petitions and the law applicable thereto are similar. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner purchased from Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (TISCO) rejects and middlings of coal, declared goods under Sec.14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the C.S.T. Act"). The petitioner paid sales tax under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (for short "the Act"). The petitioner thereafter sold part of the coal so purchased by it from TISCO in the course of inter-State trade and commerce during the period August, 1982 to March, 1983 in one case and April, 1983 to March, 1984 in the other case. Central sales tax was also paid by the petitioner. The assessment, both under the Act and the C.S.T. Act, was completed by order dated 17th June, 1984 in one case and 22nd February, 1985 in the other case.

The petitioner made a claim in the prescribed form for refund of the sales tax paid under the Act. This was done as, the petitioner contended, it was entitled under Clause (b) of Sec.15 of the C.S.T. Act. By order as contained in annexure 4, the claim was rejected by respondent No. 2. The ground on which this was rejected was that as the claim was not preferred within three months from the date on which the sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce was effected, the petitioner was not entitled to refund.

3. The petitioner has prayed for quashing annexure 4, order dated 3rd September, 1986 passed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that respondent No. 2 could not have refused to refund the sales tax on the ground of limitation.

4. Sec.16(b) of the C.S.T. Act provides that where a tax has been levied under the State law in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any declared goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and tax has been paid under the State law in respect of the sale of such goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the tax levied under such law shall be reimbursed to the person making such sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be provided in any law in force in that State. Sec.12(1) of the Act provides for "rate of tax". Sec.12(2) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this part the levy of the tax payable by a dealer under this part on sales or purchases of declared goods made by him inside Bihar shall be subject to the restrictions and conditions contained in Sec.15 of the C.S.T. Act. Rule 35 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 provides for refund of tax necessitated by Clause (b) of Sec.15 of the C.S.T. Act. Sub-rule (2), inter alia, provides that every dealer, who claims refund shall furnish to the appropriate authority the statement in form XXIII-

(a) within three months from the date on which the movement of the goods to another State commenced in the case of a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce falling within Clause (a) of Sec.3 of the C.S.T. Act;

(b) within three months from the date on which the sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce is effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods in the case of sale falling under Clause (b) of Sec.3 of the C.S.T. Act.

In this case, we are concerned with Sub-rule (2)(b) only.

5 It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that when Sec.15 of the C.S.T. Act provides for refund of tax paid on the declared goods which goods ultimately were sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the respondents could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the application for refund was not made within three months from the date on which the sale of inter-State trade or commerce was effected. It was urged that the right which has been given to a dealer under the C.S.T. Act cannot be taken away on the ground of limitation, as it wa