Duplicate tax-style payment from portal failure is not excess payment, so refund cannot be denied on limitation grounds.

A duplicate remittance made after a web portal failure was held not to be an "excess payment" within Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927. Where the payer had already paid the correct amount and paid again only because the online receipt was not generated, the second payment was a technical duplicate rather than a voluntary overpayment. As Section 19 was confined to excess payment, the limitation period attached to that provision did not apply, and refund could not be denied on limitation grounds. The refund direction was therefore maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether a payment made twice due to a web portal failure could be treated as an "excess payment" within the meaning of Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927, and whether refund of such duplicate payment could be denied on the ground of limitation.

Analysis: The expression used in Section 19 is confined to "excess payment" and does not extend to a duplicate or dual payment caused by a technical failure in the payment system. Where the payer had already remitted the correct amount and was constrained to pay again because the online receipt was not generated, the second remittance was not a voluntary excess but a duplicate payment. In such a situation, the statutory limitation tied to Section 19 did not govern the claim for refund, and the authorities could not retain the amount on a limitation objection.

Conclusion: The duplicate payment was not covered by Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927, and refund could not be refused on the basis of limitation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refund direction failed, and the order requiring return of the duplicate amount was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A duplicate payment made because of a technical failure in the payment system is not an "excess payment" for the purpose of a refund provision confined to excess payment, and the limitation attached to that provision does not bar recovery of such duplicate payment.

---