SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME

COURT ON THE QUESTION OF REFUND:

In State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries Ltd. (1965) 16 S.T.C. 689.
The respondent was a dealer registered under the Kerala Sales Tax and
it paid certain amounts by way of sales tax. Subsequently, it filed a writ
petition claiming refund on the ground that sales on which tax has been
levied were exempt from tax .
The High Court has granted a written application ordering partial
redemption.
Kerala has appealed.
The respondent stated that he did not know that the transaction in
question was not taxable when paying taxes. She claimed that she
discovered her mistake for the first time after making her payment. The
state of Kerala opposed the application for a refund, especially because the
tax was paid voluntarily and could not be legally collected. The
appeal was heard by a meeting of seven judges in that court, and in light
of the decision in Kanhai Yalal, the money paid as a result of a legal error
is recoverable under Article 72 of the Contract Act. Was decided. The
problem of confiscation is impossible. The mistake of the law is that they
are together. The
Bench further states: "If tax is levied due to an error in the law, it is
usually the responsibility of the state to refund the tax according to the
provisions of the value-added tax law. , It will be subject to 3 years from
the date when the error was found to the person who was mistakenly paid
for the error. It is the state's duty to return the law if it is done. "
in Madhya Pradesh and Ols. v. Bhailal Bhai: [1964] 6SCR261, the tax
levied on tobacco imported by respondents was found to be
unconstitutional.
These tax refund applications were also granted because the tax was
erroneously paid within the meaning of Article 72 of the Contract Act.
Kanhaiyalal followed. In addition, although there is no deadline for
written applications under Article 226 of the Constitution, the maximum
deadline set by the legislature as the deadline for filing a similar proceeding
may be considered reasonable. I also noted that there is. Deadline for
appeal to the High Court.
Kamala Mills Ltd. v Bombay State
[1965] 57ITR643 (SC) was determined by a special bench of seven
judges and contains several suggestions.
Applicant was a trader registered under the Bombay VAT Act. During
195051, sales tax was levied on certain sales treated as "internal" sales.
According to the relationship of decision
of Bengal Immunity Co., Ltd. v. Bihar [1955] 2SCR603, however, stated
that the sale is actually an external transaction that is not charged under
the Bombay Act.
Due to the expiration of the relief measures provided by the Bombay Act,
the applicant has filed a proceeding to recover the sales tax illegally
claimed for "external" sales. The state argued, among other things, that the
proceedings were time-limited under Article 20 of the Bombay Act.
The plea was upheld by the court and the proceeding was dismissed. In
the appeal, the High Court upheld, and the issue was subsequently raised to
the Supreme Court.
It was decided as follows.
(A)
The phrase "all assessments made under this Act" covers all assessments
made by the competent authority under the law, whether or not the
assessments are accurate. It was big enough. The word "evaluation has
been made" does not mean that an appropriate and correct evaluation has
been made. Her appeal in the Section 20 proceedings was clearly banned as
the applicant challenged the decision made against her. (b) The provisions
of the Bombay Act make it clear that all questions pertaining to the liability
of the dealers to pay assessment in respect of their transactions are
expressly left to be decided by the appropriate authorities under the Act as
matters falling within their jurisdiction. Whether or not a return is correct
and whether a transaction is exigible to tax, or not, are all matters to be
determined by the authorities under the Act.
(c) Where a statute creates a special right or a liability and also provides
the procedure for the determination of the right or liability by the
Tribunals constituted in that behalf and provides further that all questions
about the said right a liability shall be determined by the Tribunal so
constituted, it becomes pertinent to enquire whether remedies normally
associated with actions in civil courts are provided by the statute or not. In
other words, if the court comes to the conclusion that the Act does not
provide any remedy to make a claim for recovery of illegally collected tax
and yet Section 20 prohibits such a claim being made before an ordinary
civil court, the court might hesitate to construe Section 20 as creating an
absolute bar.
In Dhulabhai and Ors. v. Madhya Pradesh
[1968] 3SCR662, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court,
discussed in detail when a proceeding for the recovery of taxes levied and
collected under taxation occurred and made seven proposals.
(1) If the law enforces a special court order, the jurisdiction of the civil
court shall be deemed excluded if there are appropriate remedies for the
civil court to do what it normally does in a proceeding. However, this
provision does not exclude cases where this provision applies.