VENKATADRI, J.

The petitioner, who is carrying on business in cotton in Tiruppur filed this writ petition to quash an order dated 16th January, 1963, refusing refund of tax paid by him and another order dated 7th July, 1964, passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting his application for revision preferred against the order dated 16th January, 1963. It is just necessary to state a few facts before I dispose of this writ petition. The matter that led to the filing of this writ petition was an application filed by the petitioner for refund of sales tax paid by him under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. As the petitioner was carrying on business in cotton, he was assessed under the local Act and the point for levy of sales tax is the last purchase if it is within the State. As cotton is declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, if the petitioner sells his cotton outside the State, he will again be assessed. In order to avoid injustice, section 4 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act provided by a proviso that an assessee would be entitled to a refund on the tax so levied under the Central Sales Tax Act; that is if he has paid the tax at the last purchase point and if he sells cotton outside the State and if tax is levied on that sale, he would be entitled to refund of the tax. In this case, the petitioner applied for a refund from time to time in the months of August to November, 1962. His applications for refund were dismissed mainly on the ground that he did not pay part of the taxes so levied both under the Madras Act and the Central Act. When he filed a revision to the Deputy Commissioner, the order was confirmed on 29th January, 1963. The petitioner subsequently paid all the taxes and then wrote a letter dated 17th December, 1963, to the assessing officer informing him that he has paid all the taxes and praying for a refund already asked for. But this letter was summarily disposed of by the Commercial Tax Officer informing the petitioner that the matter had already been settled and the revision petition filed by him had also been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner and that the petitioner might, if so advised, seek remedy from higher authorities. This order was passed on 22nd December, 1963, but it was actually received by the petitioner on 28th December, 1963. Under section 35(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, he filed a revision to the Board of Revenue but it was only on 7th March, 1964. When that came up before the Board of Revenue, it was rejected mainly on the ground that it was barred by limitation and it was not disposed of on merits. Now it is to quash this series of orders that the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel contended before me that under the proviso to section 4 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the words used are

"the tax so levied shall be refunded to such person in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed." *

The local authority framed rules under the Act. Rule 23(3)(i) which is relevant for our purpose states that such an application for refund should not be made more than three months from the date on which the movement of the goods from this State to any other State commenced. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that such period of limitation prescribed in the rule is ultra vires, illegal and not binding on him. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has cited the decision in Solar Works v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation 1964 (1) ILR(Mad) 906; 1964 (2) MLJ 223), where at page 911 it was observed by Anantanarayanan, J., as he then was, which observations will be useful for our purpose, and they are to the effect that where an Act does not provide for limitation with reference to a particular matter and the delegation of the power to make rules is conferred by a section of the Act, which does not, expressly or impliedly, relate to the power of prescribing time, the authority to which the powe