Statutory refund of excess sales tax was held to fall under the residuary limitation article, not specific refund provisions.

A claim for refund of excess sales tax, arising from the statutory duty to refund after assessment, was not governed by Article 16 because the payment was not made under protest in the required sense. Article 96 also did not apply because the claim was not founded on discovery of mistake, but on the statutory refund obligation triggered by assessment. In the absence of a specific limitation article for such a refund claim, the residuary Article 120 applied. The suit was therefore within time, and the limitation defence failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim for refund of excess sales tax was barred by limitation, and whether the applicable article of the Limitation Act was Article 16, Article 96, or Article 120.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the sales tax law imposed a duty on the Commissioner to refund excess tax after assessment, and the refund procedure was governed by the rules framed under that Act. The claim, therefore, did not arise merely from payment under protest or from discovery of a mistake of fact in the ordinary sense; it arose from the statutory obligation to refund once the assessment showed excess payment. Article 16 was inapplicable because the payment was not made under protest in the sense required by that article. Article 96 was also inapplicable because the suit was not really founded on discovery of mistake, but on the statutory right to refund after assessment. In the absence of a specific article covering such a statutory refund claim, the residuary Article 120 governed limitation.

Conclusion: The suit was within time under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, and the limitation defence failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excess tax is refundable under a statutory obligation arising after assessment, and no specific limitation article applies, the residuary article governs the suit for refund.

---