Refund procedure under municipal toll rules does not automatically bar a civil suit absent clear statutory exclusion.

Procedural requirements in a Government order and rules governing refund of toll under section 157(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 were held to regulate only the manner and time for claiming refund, not to extinguish the underlying refund right or bar a civil suit. Notice, certificates, receipts and application within the prescribed period were treated as procedural steps, not conditions precedent, because the text did not clearly exclude civil court jurisdiction. If refund was refused for non-compliance, the claimant could still sue and prove the factual basis for exemption. The tax appeal and reference provisions were also inapplicable, as the dispute concerned refund rather than assessment or liability.

---

---

Issues: Whether the procedural requirements prescribed by the Government order and rules for claiming refund of toll under section 157(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 constituted conditions precedent that barred a civil suit for refund when not strictly complied with.

Analysis: The right to refund arose under the Government order issued under section 157(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 once the goods became the property of Government. The provisions in the order and the rules framed under section 296 merely regulated the mode and time for applying to the Municipality for refund. They required notice, certificate, receipts, and application within the prescribed period, but they did not expressly or by necessary implication extinguish the underlying right or bar the jurisdiction of the civil court. If the Municipality declined refund for non-compliance with the procedure, the claimant could still sue and prove the factual basis of the exemption. The provisions concerning taxation appeals and references did not apply because the dispute was about refund of toll, not valuation, assessment, or liability to be taxed.

Conclusion: The procedural requirements were not conditions precedent to the maintainability of a civil suit, and the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim for refund. The decision was in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural rules governing the manner and time for seeking refund of a tax do not, without clear statutory language, bar a civil suit or make compliance with those rules a condition precedent to enforcement of the substantive refund right.

---