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 to recover sales tax alleged to have been illegally collected is governed by Section 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act or by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The Court held that a suit for refund of tax alleged to have been illegally collected is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, which allows a three-year period. Section 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act was held to apply only to claims for compensation or damages arising out of tortious or criminal acts of Government officers, and not to a suit seeking restitution of tax collected without authority. Article 16 of the Limitation Act was also held inapplicable on the facts, since the demand was not one made as arrears of revenue in the manner contemplated by that article.
Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rejected and issue 3 was answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit on limitation was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh disposal on the remaining issues.
Ratio Decidendi: A suit for recovery of tax illegally collected by the State is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act and not by the special limitation provision in Section 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.