Refund under article 226 depends on mistake, final assessment, and delay; stale writ claims were refused.

Tax paid under a common mistake may be recoverable under section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, including a mistake of law, but refund through article 226 remains discretionary and subject to laches, estoppel, waiver, limitation, and the nature of the assessment order. The High Court distinguished void assessments, which may justify writ relief, from merely erroneous assessments, where the assessee should ordinarily pursue statutory remedies and first challenge the assessment itself. Because the assessments had become final, the petitions were stale, and the tax had already been collected from consumers, the Court declined discretionary refund relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether tax paid under a common mistake entitled the petitioners to refund under article 226 of the Constitution, and whether relief should be declined on the grounds of delay, finality of assessment orders, and availability of other remedies.

Analysis: The claim for refund arose from tax collected on turnover of green ginger and garlic, later contended to be exempt as vegetables. The rule under section 72 of the Indian Contract Act permits recovery of money paid under mistake, including mistake of law, but the remedy under article 226 is discretionary and remains subject to factors such as estoppel, waiver, limitation, laches, and the nature of the assessment order. The Court distinguished between assessments that are void for want of jurisdiction and assessments that are merely erroneous in law. Where an assessment is not void, the assessee must ordinarily pursue the statutory remedies, and a writ for refund cannot be granted without first questioning the assessment itself. The petitions were also found to be stale, many having been filed long after the assessments became final and beyond the period ordinarily treated as reasonable for invoking writ jurisdiction. The Court further treated the fact that the petitioners had already collected the tax from consumers as a relevant circumstance militating against discretionary relief.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to refund under article 226, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---