Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could maintain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for refund of excise duty allegedly collected without authority, or whether they should be relegated to civil suits in view of delay and the mixed nature of the controversy.
Analysis: The Court noted that although refund of tax paid under mistake of law is ordinarily capable of being sought in writ jurisdiction, the present petitions were filed long after the impugned trade notice and exemption notification, and after the introduction of the later tariff item. The controversy also involved factual inquiry into the composition of blended yarn and whether the levy was covered by earlier tariff items, making the matter unsuitable for determination in writ proceedings. Applying the principle that extraordinary relief should be refused where there is unreasonable delay and a prima facie bar or disputed questions of fact, the Court held that the petitioners should pursue civil suits if so advised.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable for grant of refund relief and the petitioners were required to seek their remedy in civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where refund of tax involves disputed questions of fact and the writ petitions are filed after substantial delay, the court may decline discretionary writ relief and relegate the parties to a civil suit.