Special refund limitation and exclusive statutory remedy prevent collateral relief and enlarge no filing period under tax law.

A special refund procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1922 was held to be governed by a fixed limitation period, and that period could not be enlarged by implication for claims outside the statute's express extension clause. The existence of a statutory appeal was treated as the exclusive remedy, so collateral relief by mandamus or under the Specific Relief Act was unavailable. A reference under the statutory case-statement provision was also held not maintainable where the question arose from an order under the refund provision and the reference power was restricted by the scheme of the Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Section 66(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 could be entertained for a question arising out of an order under Section 48(1) when Section 66(2) restricted such reference; (ii) Whether a refund claim under Section 48(1) was barred by limitation under Section 50 and whether the availability of the appeal under Section 50-A and recourse to Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act could overcome that bar.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Section 66(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 could be entertained for a question arising out of an order under Section 48(1) when Section 66(2) restricted such reference.

Analysis: The statutory scheme made a reference under Section 66(3) unavailable where the question arose out of an order under Section 48. Section 66(2) controlled the larger reference power, and the question sought to be referred was one connected with the refund mechanism under Section 48(1). As the matter fell within that excluded class, the Court held that the reference procedure could not be used to compel a case-statement.

Conclusion: The application for a reference was not maintainable under Section 66(3), and this ground was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a refund claim under Section 48(1) was barred by limitation under Section 50 and whether the availability of the appeal under Section 50-A and recourse to Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act could overcome that bar.

Analysis: Section 50 prescribed a definite period for refund claims and allowed extension only for the limited class of claims under Section 49, not for claims under Section 48. The Court treated the absence of an express enabling provision as decisive and held that the limitation could not be enlarged by judicial intervention merely because the assessment was made after the period had run. The existence of an appeal under Section 50-A was treated as a specific statutory remedy, and that remedy excluded resort to Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred, no extension could be granted, and the assessee could not obtain mandamus or analogous relief; this issue was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The application failed on both the reference issue and the limitation issue, and the refusal of refund stood undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the taxing statute prescribes a special refund procedure with a fixed limitation period and a specific appellate remedy, the Court will not enlarge that limitation or permit collateral relief by mandamus unless the statute expressly authorises it.

---