Refund claims under taxing statutes must comply with statutory limitation, and writ jurisdiction cannot override that bar.

In refund claims under a taxing statute, writ jurisdiction must be exercised consistently with the statute's limitation period and scheme. A refund claim made beyond the permissible time limit under the excise law could not be sustained merely through writ proceedings, because the court must respect the statutory bar governing such refunds. The allowance of the refund was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund of excise duty claimed beyond the permissible period under the excise law could be granted in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The claim for refund was made after the period permitted by the governing excise law. The Court reiterated that where a writ court deals with a refund claim arising under a taxing statute, it must take note of the statutory limitations and exercise its discretion consistently with those provisions.

Conclusion: The refund could not be sustained in writ proceedings contrary to the statutory time limit, and the decision allowing the claim was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In refund matters under a taxing statute, writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the statute's own limitation and scheme.

---