Refund of unlawfully collected tax cannot be refused for delay where the assessment itself lacked jurisdiction.

Tax collected without authority of law was held refundable, and such refund could not be denied in writ jurisdiction merely on delay or limitation where the underlying assessment and demand were without jurisdiction. The governing principle was that unlawful State collection is returnable, subject to article 226 discretion and the equitable doctrine of laches. The Court distinguished a bare refund claim from refund sought as consequential relief after the assessment is set aside. On the facts, the writ was filed promptly after the illegality became clear, with no unexplained delay, abandonment, or prejudice shown, so refusal of refund was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of tax collected without authority of law could be refused in writ jurisdiction on the ground of delay or limitation when the assessment itself was found to be without jurisdiction and the refund was sought as consequential relief.

Analysis: The assessment orders and demand notices were held to be without jurisdiction, and the tax had been realised without authority of law. The governing principle applied was that money collected by the State without legal authority is refundable, subject to the High Court's discretionary power under article 226 and the equitable doctrine of laches. The Court distinguished cases where a petition is filed solely for refund from cases where refund is claimed as a consequential relief after the assessment is set aside. On the facts, the claim arose only after the later High Court decision made the illegality and consequent right to refund clear, and the writ petition filed soon thereafter was treated as prompt. No unexplained delay, abandonment of claim, or prejudice to the respondents or third parties was shown.

Conclusion: The refusal of refund could not be sustained, and the tax illegally realised was refundable to the assessee.

---