TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. If there was good reason in law for rejecting the refund claim, it should have been stated. Not to have responded to the appellants' refund claim for 11 years and then to have turned it down without reason is to have acted disrespectfully to this Court. Even assuming, therefore, that this was a writ petition only for money, the writ petition fell outside the ordinary stream of writ petitions and, acting upon it, the High Court should have ordered the refund. Appeal allowed. - 2043 of 1981 - - - Dated:- 29-8-1996 - S.P. Bharucha and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ. [Order]. - In Adhyaksha Mathur Babu's Sakti Oushadhalaya Dacca (P) Ltd. Ors. v. Union of India, 1963 (3) SCR 957, the main question raised and argued in writ petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was for the period 20th August, 1960, to 30th September, 1962, in the sum of ₹ 91, 723.80. The principal contention in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State and raised at the hearing was that the writ petition was not maintainable in that the claim for refund could not be determined in the writ jurisdiction. The High Court found that the writ petition, in essence, sought to obtain only a money decree and this could not be allowed. The appellant was permitted to file a suit to recover the amount of the refund that it claimed. 4.Our attention is drawn by learned counsel for the appellant to the judgment of this Court in Salonah Tea Company Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes Nowgong Ors. Etc., 1988 (2) SCR 474. The appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conferred under Article 226, a writ petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund monies was not ordinarily maintainable for the reason that a claim for such refund could be made in a suit against the authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax. The Court held : .... that no petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus will be normally entertained for the purpose of merely ordering a refund of money to the return of which the petitioner claims a right . (Emphasis supplied) It was reiterated : ..... that normally petitions solely praying for the refund of money against the State by a writ of mandamus are not to be entertained. The aggrieved party has the right of going to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejection, there was much to be said about its validity. 8.But we proceed upon the basis that the writ petition was only to claim the refund. 9.It cannot be forgotten that this Court had held levy in respect of which the refund was claimed to be bad in law. This Court's judgment clearly contemplated consequential refund but made no order in that behalf, leaving it to the writ petitioners to approach their State Governments. The refund application made by the appellants accordingly was rejected, and that without giving any reasons. Even in the counter filed by the respondent-State to the writ petition, it is difficult to read any defence other than the defence that the writ petition was not maintainable and that it was barred by li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
