Writ refund claims under Article 226 are generally unsuitable without a clear statutory right or consequential challenge to assessment.

Article 226 is ordinarily not the proper remedy for a bare claim seeking refund of tax allegedly collected illegally; where the petition does not challenge the assessment itself and seek consequential relief, the claimant should ordinarily proceed by civil suit. A writ of mandamus for refund is also unavailable unless a clear statutory duty to repay is shown and the refund flows from the setting aside of the assessment. Questions such as limitation, statutory entitlement, and related mistake-based claims were treated as matters for regular civil adjudication rather than writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily maintainable when it seeks only refund of money alleged to have been illegally collected as tax. (ii) Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 for refund of tax collected before the Constitution came into force, where the final assessment was later set aside in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily maintainable when it seeks only refund of money alleged to have been illegally collected as tax.

Analysis: The remedy under Article 226 is wide, but it is ordinarily not meant to supplant a civil suit for recovery of money. Where the petition is framed solely as a demand for refund of money, and not as a challenge to the assessment order with consequential relief, the ordinary civil remedy remains available. The exceptional cases in which refund has been ordered under writ jurisdiction were cases where the assessment itself was challenged and repayment followed as a consequential relief after the impugned order was set aside. A bare claim for refund against the State does not, by itself, attract the normal exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Such a petition is ordinarily not maintainable, and the remedy lies in a civil suit.

Issue (ii): Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 for refund of tax collected before the Constitution came into force, where the final assessment was later set aside in appeal.

Analysis: Even where repayment is sought after an assessment has been held illegal, the grant of mandamus is discretionary and depends on the facts. The Court found no statutory provision casting a duty on the State to refund the amount merely because the assessment was later set aside. Rule 8(a) did not provide the claimed refund in the situation before the Court. The appellant also did not establish a clear statutory right to refund, and questions such as limitation and the applicability of mistake under the Contract Act were matters for a regular suit, not for writ adjudication.

Conclusion: No writ of mandamus could be issued for the refund claimed.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to grant writ relief was upheld because a bare refund claim against the State was not normally entertainable under Article 226 and no clear statutory duty to refund was shown.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of mandamus for refund of money is ordinarily not available under Article 226 unless the claimant establishes a clear statutory right or the refund follows as consequential relief after challenge to the impugned assessment; a bare monetary claim against the State should ordinarily be pursued in civil proceedings.

---