Assessee denied interest on sales tax; appeal allowed, decree restored.

State of Andhra Pradesh Versus Mothey Gangaraju

State of Andhra Pradesh Versus Mothey Gangaraju - [1963] 14 STC 112 (AP) Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to claim interest on illegally collected sales tax.
2. Wrongful withholding of the amount after the assessment was declared illegal.
3. Timeliness of the claim for interest.
4. Applicability of the Interest Act and Civil Procedure Code to the claim for interest.
5. Doctrine of restitution and its applicability.
6. Equitable grounds for awarding interest.
7. Statutory provisions under the Sales Tax Act regarding interest on excess tax collected.
8. Tortious liability of the government for the wrongful collection of tax.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Claim Interest on Illegally Collected Sales Tax:
The primary issue was whether the assessee could claim interest on sales tax collected under an assessment later declared illegal. The court examined the statutory provisions and case law to determine if interest could be awarded. The court concluded that unless a case falls within specific heads, interest cannot be awarded on general equitable grounds. The Madras General Sales Tax Act and rules did not provide for interest on excess tax collected.

2. Wrongful Withholding of the Amount:
The court evaluated whether the state wrongfully withheld the amount after the assessment was declared illegal. It was determined that the collection was not wrongful in the sense required to award interest, as the tax was collected under the authority of the Sales Tax Act, which did not provide for interest on refunds.

3. Timeliness of the Claim for Interest:
The state contended that the claim for interest was barred by time. However, the court found that the suit was filed within the permissible period, and thus, the claim was not barred by time.

4. Applicability of the Interest Act and Civil Procedure Code:
The court analyzed the applicability of Section 1 of the Interest Act (XXXII of 1839) and Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was noted that the Interest Act allows interest on debts or sums certain payable at a certain time by virtue of a written instrument or upon written demand. Section 34 provides for interest from the date of the suit to the date of the decree but does not cover interest prior to the suit. The court concluded that the Interest Act did not apply as the tax collected did not meet the criteria of a "sum certain" payable at a certain time by virtue of a written instrument.

5. Doctrine of Restitution:
The court discussed the doctrine of restitution under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows for restitution when a decree or order is varied or reversed. The principle is that a party who received the benefit of an erroneous judgment must make restitution. However, the court found that this doctrine did not apply as the assessment order was not a decree of a court.

6. Equitable Grounds for Awarding Interest:
The court examined whether interest could be awarded on equitable grounds. It was clarified that interest could only be awarded where the equitable jurisdiction of the court is attracted, as laid down by the Privy Council. The court referred to various precedents, including Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Limited v. Ratanji Ramji, which emphasized that interest could not be awarded on general equitable grounds but only in specific circumstances where equity jurisdiction is applicable.

7. Statutory Provisions under the Sales Tax Act:
The court reviewed the relevant provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and rules, which only provided for the refund of excess tax collected but explicitly stated that such refunds would be without interest. The amendments made by the Madras General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, VI of 1951, reinforced that refunds would be without interest.

8. Tortious Liability of the Government:
The court addressed whether the government's collection of tax could be considered a tortious act. It was determined that the collection was made under the belief that it was lawful under the Sales Tax Act, and thus, it did not constitute a tortious act. The court relied on the decision in Municipal Borough of Ahmedabad v. Vadilal Dalsukhram, which held that a suit for interest on tax collected illegally could not be based on tort.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the assessee was not entitled to claim interest on the illegally collected sales tax. The statutory provisions and case law did not support the award of interest on general equitable grounds or under the Interest Act. The appeal was allowed, and the decree of the District Munsiff was restored, with each party bearing its own costs.