Refund of tax on cotton seeds upheld where collection continued despite a subsisting direction against realisation.

A subsisting direction had barred realisation of tax on cotton seeds for the relevant period, and the petitioners had already paid the levy. Refusal to refund would have left them worse off than similarly placed persons who had received repayment, especially when the factual plea on parity was not effectively denied. On that basis, the petitioners were held entitled to refund of the tax recovered on cotton seeds for 14 May 1964 to 27 February 1969, and the writ petitions succeeded with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of tax recovered on cotton seeds for the period 14 May 1964 to 27 February 1969.

Analysis: The taxing authority had directed that no tax on cotton seeds be realised for the relevant period. The petitioners had already paid the tax and sought refund. In the absence of any effective denial to the factual plea that similarly placed persons had received refund, and given the subsisting direction against realisation of tax for that period, refusal of refund would place the petitioners in a worse position than those who had not paid.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to refund of the tax recovered on cotton seeds for the stated period, and the writ petitions succeeded with costs.

---