Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a suit for recovery of sales tax alleged to have been illegally collected was governed by the six-month bar under Section 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act or by Article 16 of the Limitation Act, or whether Article 62 of the Limitation Act applied.
Analysis: Section 18 was held to be confined to suits for compensation or damages in respect of acts done under the Act and not to suits for refund of tax illegally collected. Article 16 was inapplicable because the claim was not for arrears of revenue or a demand recoverable as such arrears. The proper provision was Article 62, which governs suits for money had and received and provides three years from the date of receipt. The Full Bench ruling on the similarly worded provision in the Madras Local Boards Act was applied, and the jurisdiction of civil courts was not ousted.
Conclusion: Article 62 of the Limitation Act applied and the suit was within time; the limitation defence failed.
Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal followed from the finding that the plaintiff's refund suit was not barred by limitation and that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain it.
Ratio Decidendi: A suit for recovery of tax illegally collected is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act and not by a short special limitation provision confined to suits for damages or compensation.