Limitation for refund of cess paid by mistake turns on discovery of error with reasonable diligence; claim was time-barred.

A claim for refund of cess paid under a mistake of law and fact was held time-barred because limitation under Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 17 begins when the plaintiff discovers the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. The court found that once the earlier notification had been cancelled by a later notification, the plaintiff, aware of that cancellation, could reasonably have identified the irregularity in the payments when the later notification took effect. As the plaintiff failed to prove a later date of discovery and did not satisfactorily establish discovery only in September 1965, the refund suit was barred by limitation and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for refund of cess paid under mistake was barred by limitation, having regard to the plaintiff's knowledge of the cancellation of the earlier notification and the requirement of discovery of the mistake with reasonable diligence.

Analysis: The plaintiff's claim was for refund of cess alleged to have been paid under a mistake of law and fact. Under Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 17, time begins to run when the plaintiff discovers the mistake or, with reasonable diligence, could have discovered it. The earlier notification had been cancelled by a later notification, and the Court held that the plaintiff, knowing of that cancellation, could reasonably and with due diligence have discovered the irregularity in the earlier payments on the date the later notification became effective. The plaintiff failed to lead evidence to establish a later date of discovery and did not satisfactorily prove that the alleged knowledge arose only in September 1965.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the refund claim was rejected.

---