Statutory limitation for refund claims barred the petition; the limited post-judgment re-presentation window had expired.

A refund claim under the statutory limitation scheme was held to be time-barred because it was filed beyond the prescribed period. The HC applied the Supreme Court's rule that refund applications must comply with the statutory deadline and that the limited 60-day post-judgment window for re-presentation could not assist a claimant who had not acted within that period. The court rejected a liberal construction of the Supreme Court's wording, treating the language as plain and unambiguous. The petition was therefore not maintainable, and the refund claim failed on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition seeking refund of duty was maintainable when it was filed beyond the statutory limitation period and beyond the limited window recognised by the Supreme Court for refund claims.

Analysis: The claim for refund was held to be barred by limitation under the statutory refund provision. The Court applied the rule declared by the Supreme Court that refund claims had to comply with the prescribed period, and that the temporary 60-day opportunity to re-present claims after the judgment could not assist a petitioner who had not acted within that period. The plea for a liberal construction of the words used by the Supreme Court was rejected because the language was treated as plain and unambiguous.

Conclusion: The refund petition was held to be time-barred and not maintainable; the decision was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on limitation, and the claim for refund was rejected on the ground that the statutory period had expired.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the statutory limitation scheme cannot be entertained when it is filed beyond the prescribed period, and a limited post-judgment refund window cannot be invoked after its expiry.

---