Restitution for customs duty collected without authority of law can proceed under Article 226 despite refund limitation objections.

Refund of customs duty collected without authority of law was treated as a claim in restitution arising from a mistake of law, so the ordinary refund limitation under the Customs Act did not govern the matter. A writ petition under Article 226 was regarded as the proper remedy where the levy itself lacked legal authority. Rejection of the refund claim solely on the ground of delay was therefore unsustainable, and refund with interest was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim for customs duty collected without authority of law could be denied on the ground that the application under the Customs Act was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, and whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was the proper remedy.

Analysis: The claim for refund arose from payment of duty under a mistake of law and on the footing that the levy itself lacked authority of law. A refund provision in the Customs Act or the rules made under it was held not to govern a case where the amount had been collected without authority of law. In such circumstances, recourse to a writ under Article 226 for restitution of the amount was treated as the appropriate remedy. The rejection of the refund claim solely on limitation was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed, and the petitioners were entitled to refund with interest as directed.

---