9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (2) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of Andhra Pradesh arise out of eight writ petitions numbering 300 of 1967 to 307 of 1967 for the issue of writs of certiorari and mandamus in respect of assessments made under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act for the years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1963-64 in respect of purchase and sale of cotton. It appears from the special leave petition that the appellant purchased cotton in the State of Andhra Pradesh at various centres and used to sell the same in the course of inter-State trade or commerce being registered as a dealer both under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The appellant's case further was that being the last dealer who had bought the cotton in the State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9; 16 S.T.C. 231. This discovery is alleged to have been made in January, 1967. The appellant further claims to have called upon the respondents to cancel the orders of assessment and refund the amount of the taxes which had been recovered illegally but the respondents failed and neglected to do so. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the writ petitions when they came up for admission, mainly on the ground that the petitions for the grant of the extraordinary remedy could not be admitted after the lapse of a long period. The High Court was also of the view that the question of time when the mistake was discovered was a question of fact which had to be enquired into and as the appellant had a remedy open to it by way of a suit in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Act, 1908), namely, three years from the date when the mistake had become known to the person who has made the payment by mistake (see State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai [1964] 15 S.T.C. 450.)." The Court further pointed out that it was the duty of the State to investigate the facts when the mistake was brought to its notice and to make a refund if mistake was proved and the claim was made within the period of limitation. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai [1964] 15 S.T.C. 450., this Court held that "the High Courts have power for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights and statutory rights to give consequential relief by ordering repayment of money realised by the Government without the authority of law." It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se questions and then come to its conclusion as to whether it would not use its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. But the petitions could not be rejected summarily as was done by the High Court in these cases. Eight of the appeals arise out of the rejection of the writ petitions and eight others out of refusal to grant special leave to appeal to this Court. We allow the appeals against the orders rejecting the writ petitions and direct the High Court to admit the writ petitions and hear the matters out in the normal way. Since we have granted special leave against the orders rejecting the writ petitions, it is not necessary to consider whether the High Court erred in refusing to certify the appeals under Article 133. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
