https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100779 The Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over a refund suit because the statutory refund scheme required applications to be made to the Commissioner in Bihar and payment through the prescribed treasury process there. The assessments were treated as valid under article 286(2), the Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950, and section 2 of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, so the payments could not be characterised as made under a mistake of law. The appellate authority's refund-related order did not relocate the cause of action to Calcutta, and the encashment of cheques in Calcutta was insufficient to found jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 06 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100779 The Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over a refund suit because the statutory refund scheme required applications to be made to the Commissioner in Bihar and payment through the prescribed treasury process there. The assessments were treated as valid under article 286(2), the Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950, and section 2 of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, so the payments could not be characterised as made under a mistake of law. The appellate authority's refund-related order did not relocate the cause of action to Calcutta, and the encashment of cheques in Calcutta was insufficient to found jurisdiction. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 06 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100779