Limitation for refund of tax paid under mistake of law begins when the mistake is discoverable, not after final appeal.

A refund claim for tax paid under mistake of law was held to fall under the residuary limitation provision, read with section 17 of the Limitation Act, because the right to sue arose only when the mistake was discoverable with reasonable diligence. The court found that the earlier High Court judgment quashing the assessment itself disclosed the legal mistake and gave a complete cause of action, so limitation began then and was not postponed by the pending Supreme Court appeal. The later affirming judgment did not extend time. The suit was therefore barred by limitation and the refund claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for refund of tax paid under mistake or coercion was governed by the residuary article of limitation and, if so, whether limitation began to run from the High Court's judgment quashing the assessment or only from the Supreme Court's final judgment.

Analysis: The claim for refund of amounts paid towards an illegal tax assessment was not governed by the specific article relating to money received, because the right to refund did not arise immediately on receipt of the money but arose only after the legal position concerning the assessment was judicially settled. The proper provision was the residuary article of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with section 17, so that time would begin only when the mistake was discovered or could with reasonable diligence have been discovered. On the facts, the court held that the earlier High Court decision itself disclosed the mistake and gave a complete cause of action, even though the matter was carried in appeal. The later affirming decision of the Supreme Court did not postpone the starting point of limitation.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation; the refund claim failed and the decree of the court below was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: For a claim to refund money paid under mistake of law, limitation runs from the date when the mistake is discoverable with reasonable diligence, and where an earlier judgment has already disclosed the legal mistake and created the cause of action, pendency of an appeal does not postpone limitation unless the appellate decision itself first gives rise to the claim.

---