JUDGMENT
Mishra, J.
1. The petitioner in all the cases is a dealer in hides and skins and other goods. They have been assessed, and accordingly asked to pay tax on their taxable turnover for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. They, however, disputed the levy of tax on the inter-State sale of dressed hides and skins on the ground that the commodity had already suffered tax in the shape of raw hides and skins. According to them, tanning and dressing do not differentiate or change the product from raw hides and skins. Their case, however, did not find favour either with the assessing authority or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal for the reason that by now it is well-settled that raw hides and skins and dressed hides and skins are different articles of merchandise as held in the case reported in Hajee Adbul Shukoor and Company v. State of Madras by the Supreme Court and several other judgments of this Court. We, therefore, do not find any merit in all the cases.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has drawn our attention to section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act and section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provide for reimbursement of tax paid in certain cases. Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act imposes restriction and condition in regard to tax on sale or purchase of the goods within a State and it says :
“Every sales tax law of a State shall, in so far as it imposes or authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, be subject to the following restrictions and conditions, namely :
(a) the tax payable under that law in respect of any sale or purchase of such goods inside the State shall not exceed four per cent of the sale or purchase price thereof, and such tax shall not be levied at more than one stage;
(b) where a tax has been levied under that 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 this Act 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;
(c) where a tax has been levied under that law in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State ………..”
3. The corresponding provision under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act is section 4-A which provides for reimbursement or refund of tax paid. Section 4-A says :
“(1) where a tax has been levied and collected under section 4 or 7-A in respect of the sale or purchase of declared goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, and tax has been paid under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956) in respect of the sale of such goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the tax levied and collected under section 4 or 7-A 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 prescribed.”
4. This provision only makes the petitioner entitled to seek reimbursement or refund on the basis of the plea that the tax was levied upon his inter-State sale and thus the tax, which he paid, should be reimbursed or refunded under section 4-A or 7-A of the Act. The prescribed manner and conditions for seeking such reimbursement, however, are found under rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, which provides for reimbursement or refund of tax under sub-section (1) of section 4-A of the Act. It appears the petitioner never filed any such claim in the prescribed form either with the return of turnover or any time prior to the final assessment on account of any particular order. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that, since the petitioner contested the very imposition of tax, he did not file any claim for reimbursement. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the proviso to rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, which says, “provided that the assessing authority may condone delays up to a period of seven days in the submission of the statement, if he is satisfied that the dealer had sufficient cause for not submitting the statement within the period”. According to him, since time up to the submission of the statement of the account for a particular year, is contemplated under rule 23, that period of 7 days should be granted from the date of receipt of copy of this order, rejecting the revision petition, because the revision petition was in continuation of the proceedings of the final assessment. We do not propose to decide this question because there is no such pleading before us except the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar that the petitioner intends to make such a claim. In case any such claim is filed on behalf of the petitioner, the assessing authority shall be duty bound to consider his claim, particularly in view of the fact that the final assessment made by the assessing authority is final subject to appeal and revision, and his order cannot be presumed as final in cases, where appeals and revisions are preferred until the appeals and revisions are finally concluded. Be that as it may, on the facts of the case, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner. The tax cases are accordingly dismissed.
5. Petition dismissed.