9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Excise Acts in force in the respective States. A Constitution Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the said medicinal preparations could not be taxed under the Excise Acts in force in the States and that they could be taxed only in accordance with the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act. This Court stated that it passed "no order as to the claim for refund for that is a matter which the petitioners can take up with the State Governments concerned according to law". The judgment was delivered on 7th September, 1962. 2.The appellants were one of the many writ petitioners before the Court. (Their Writ Petition was No. 354 of 1961). They were, therefore, thus empowered to take up with the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration was whether in a petition under Article 226 the Court should have directed refund. It was noted that the Courts had made a distinction between those cases where a petitioner approached the High Court seeking only the relief of obtaining a refund and those where refund was sought as a relief consequential upon the striking down of an order of assessment. Normally speaking, it was observed, in a society governed by the rule of law taxes should be paid by citizens as soon as they were due in accordance with law. Equally, as a corollary, it followed that taxes collected without the authority of the law from a citizen should be refunded because no State had the right to receive or retain monies realised from citizens without the autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction". (Emphasis supplied) 6.It would appear that in the case of Adhyaksha Mathur Babu Sakti Oushadhalaya Dacca (P) Ltd., this Court expected that high constitutional authorities such as State Governments would honour a decision of the Supreme Court and take the remedial action the decision clearly contemplated, namely, of refund to the parties from whom they had collected the levy which was found to be illegal. The expectation, in so far as it related to this case, was belied. 7.Within a month and about 10 days of the judgment of this Court, i.e., on 17th October, 1962, the appellants asked the respondent-State 11 years to reject the claim. The letter of the respondent-State to make the refund. It took the respondent-State to the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court carried the case of the respondent-State on the writ petition no further. The only case, in reality, was that the appellants should be relegated to a civil suit. No defence upon facts being disclosed, the object was to buy time. 10.The writ petition was not a run-of-the-mill case. It was a case where the respondent-State had not acted as this Court had expected a high constitutional authority to act, in furtherance of the order of this Court. That is something that this Court cannot accept. The respondent-State was obliged by this Court's order to refund to the writ petitioners, including the appellants, the amounts collected from them in the form of the levy that was held to be illegal. If there was good reason in law for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
