Refund rights after tax repeal survive as a constitutional obligation when the statutory refund machinery no longer exists.

Repeal of the Jaipur Excess Profits Tax Act, 1944 preserved only levy, assessment and collection for limited purposes; refund claims were outside that saving and the refund machinery under sections 36 and 37 did not survive. The obligation to refund remained enforceable as a constitutional liability under article 295(1)(b), and section 43 limitation could not bar enforcement once the statutory refund process had ceased. Delay was not treated as fatal where the assessees had bona fide pursued related remedies elsewhere, and relief was directed by mandamus.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the repeal of the Jaipur Excess Profits Tax Act, 1944 by section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950 saved the assessees' right to seek refund and whether the refund claim was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay.

Issue (i): Whether the repeal of the Jaipur Excess Profits Tax Act, 1944 by section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950 saved the assessees' right to seek refund and whether the refund claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The repeal provision in section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950 continued the State law only for the limited purposes of levy, assessment and collection of income-tax and super-tax. A claim for refund did not fall within those saved purposes. The machinery provisions governing refund under sections 36 and 37 of the Jaipur Act also ceased to operate after repeal, and no corresponding authority existed thereafter for processing a refund application. The obligation to refund therefore survived as a constitutional liability under article 295(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, but the limitation period in section 43 could not govern enforcement of that constitutional obligation once the refund machinery had disappeared.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation, and the assessees were entitled to enforce the refund obligation.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay.

Analysis: The delay was explained by the assessees' bona fide pursuit of remedies before the Rajasthan High Court and related proceedings. In the circumstances, delay was not treated as a sufficient ground to refuse relief.

Conclusion: The petition was not dismissed for delay.

Final Conclusion: The appellants succeeded in establishing an enforceable right to refund, and the respondents were directed to refund the amount due by mandamus.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute is repealed except for limited saved purposes, refund provisions and refund machinery do not survive unless expressly preserved, and a constitutional obligation to refund under article 295 cannot be defeated by a limitation provision that has ceased to operate for that purpose.

---