Duplicate light dues payment from system failure is not statutory excess payment and refund limitation does not apply.

Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927 applies to refunds of light dues paid in excess of the amount legally payable, requiring a claim within six months. A duplicate remittance made after the correct liability was already paid, caused by portal failure and the absence of a receipt, was treated as an inadvertent erroneous payment rather than statutory excess payment. On that basis, the limitation in Section 19 did not govern the claim, and the refund request was held not to be time-barred. The authorities were directed to repay the duplicate amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's claim for refund of duplicate Light Dues payment was barred by limitation under Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927, and whether the duplicate payment could be treated as excess payment falling within that provision.

Analysis: Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927 applies where Light Dues have been paid in excess of the amount payable under the Act, in which event a refund claim must be made within six months. The statutory scheme under Sections 9, 10 and 12 of the Act shows that Light Dues are linked to the vessel and its tonnage, and the limitation in Section 19 is intended for cases of excess levy arising from incorrect calculation of the payable dues. The petitioner, however, had made the correct payment once through the web portal and a second payment manually only because the portal failed to generate a receipt, resulting in an inadvertent duplicate payment rather than excess payment in the statutory sense. The Court also drew support from the principles governing recovery of money paid under mistake and held that limitation cannot be used to retain a forced or erroneous duplicate payment caused by system failure.

Conclusion: Section 19 did not govern the petitioner's claim, and the refund application was not barred by limitation. The petitioner was entitled to refund of the duplicate payment.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim and the appellate dismissal were unsustainable, and the authorities were directed to repay the duplicate amount.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory refund limitation for excess payment does not apply to an inadvertent duplicate payment made for the correct liability because of system failure or similar administrative error.

---