1956 (7) TMI 37 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Supreme Court grants appeal on tax recovery case, emphasizing public importance and State covering expenses.

The Sales Tax Officer, Banaras and Others Versus Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Sarraf

The Sales Tax Officer, Banaras and Others Versus Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Sarraf - [1956] 7 STC 658 (All) Issues:- Whether moneys voluntarily paid as tax under a law later declared invalid are recoverable.- Whether the decision of the Privy Council conclusively determines the appeal.- Consideration of the amount involved in the appeal and its impact on granting leave to appeal.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of the High Court dismissing an appeal related to the refund of sales tax paid by a respondent firm for forward contracts in silver. The key issue revolves around the recoverability of taxes paid voluntarily under a law later deemed invalid. The Court acknowledged the public importance of the matter and the substantial sum of money involved. The respondent firm sought a refund after the law imposing the tax was declared ultra vires. The Court considered whether the payment was made under a mistake of fact or law, emphasizing the significant implications of the decision on a large number of individuals in the State.The Court deliberated on the authority of the decision of the Privy Council in a related case, emphasizing that such a decision is no longer binding on the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Court highlighted the absence of a Supreme Court decision on the specific issue at hand, indicating the need for a fresh determination. Additionally, the Court addressed the argument regarding the small amount of Rs. 1,365-12-0 involved in the appeal. Citing precedent, the Court recognized the potential oppressiveness of involving the respondent firm in costly litigation for a relatively small sum, despite the significant legal question at stake.Considering the circumstances and the potential financial burden on the respondent firm, the Court required the State to undertake the payment of all costs, charges, and expenses incurred by the respondent firm in the appeal process. The State agreed to cover these expenses, leading the Court to grant the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution. The Court deemed this a fit case for appeal, given the public importance of the issue and the State's commitment to cover the respondent's expenses. No specific order was made regarding the costs of the application, and the application was ultimately allowed.