Refund of illegally collected sales tax governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, not limitation for revenue arrears.

A suit to recover sales tax allegedly collected illegally was held not to fall within Section 18 of the Madras General Sales-tax Act, because that provision was construed as covering compensation or damages for acts done under the Act, not refund claims. Article 16 of the Limitation Act was also held inapplicable, since the claim was not one for arrears of revenue or a sum recoverable as such arrears. Article 62 of the Limitation Act, governing recovery of money received by the defendant, applied instead, so the suit was within time and not barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit for recovery of sales tax alleged to have been illegally collected was barred by limitation under Section 18 of the Madras General Sales-tax Act or Article 16 of the Limitation Act, or whether Article 62 of the Limitation Act applied.

Analysis: Section 18 of the Madras General Sales-tax Act was construed as intended to cover suits for compensation or damages in respect of acts done under the Act, and not suits seeking refund of tax illegally or in excess collected. The reasoning was supported by the earlier Full Bench view that an analogous provision in the local boards law was confined to claims for compensation or damages and did not apply to refund suits. Article 16 of the Limitation Act was held inapplicable because the tax was not a claim for arrears of revenue or a demand recoverable as such arrears. The proper provision was Article 62 of the Limitation Act, which governs recovery of money received by the defendant.

Conclusion: The suit was governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act and was not barred by limitation. The appeal failed.

---