Customs refund limitation bars writ relief where the statutory refund claim is filed beyond the prescribed period.

Refund claims for customs duty are subject to the six-month limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act, and an erroneous levy by customs does not remove the claim from that statutory bar. The writ remedy under Article 226 is not governed by the Limitation Act, but it cannot be used to bypass the limitation applicable to the underlying refund application. The result is that a time-barred customs refund claim cannot be entertained merely by invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claim for customs duty was barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act; (ii) whether the exclusion of the Limitation Act could save the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether the refund claim for customs duty was barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act.

Analysis: The refund application was held to be governed by Section 27, and the Court relied on the Supreme Court authority cited before it to hold that a refund claim must be made within the prescribed six-month period. The mistaken levy did not take the case outside the scope of Section 27, because an erroneous exercise of power by the customs authorities was not treated as an act without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation and could not be entertained.

Issue (ii): whether the exclusion of the Limitation Act could save the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that proceedings under Article 226 are not governed by the Limitation Act, but this did not assist the petitioners because the substantive claim for refund remained subject to Section 27 of the Customs Act. The constitutional remedy could not be used to bypass the statutory limitation applicable to the refund application.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not saved by the Limitation Act or by resort to Article 226.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the refund claim was held to be time-barred under the customs refund provision, leaving no basis for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim for customs duty must satisfy the limitation prescribed by the customs refund provision, and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to circumvent that statutory bar.

---