https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150125 A later judicial decision that changes the taxability view does not, by itself, create a mistake apparent on the face of a concluded assessment or appellate order under section 55 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act; rectification was therefore not permissible and the refusal to rectify was justified. Article 226 could not be used to quash that refusal or to recover tax paid under lawful assessment orders merely because a subsequent ruling suggested a different position, especially where the taxpayers had accepted the appellate orders as final. In the absence of any corresponding public duty to refund, the proper remedy was not writ relief, and the refund claim through certiorari or mandamus was rejected. en-us Thu, 19 Aug 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2013 11:42:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150125 A later judicial decision that changes the taxability view does not, by itself, create a mistake apparent on the face of a concluded assessment or appellate order under section 55 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act; rectification was therefore not permissible and the refusal to rectify was justified. Article 226 could not be used to quash that refusal or to recover tax paid under lawful assessment orders merely because a subsequent ruling suggested a different position, especially where the taxpayers had accepted the appellate orders as final. In the absence of any corresponding public duty to refund, the proper remedy was not writ relief, and the refund claim through certiorari or mandamus was rejected. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 19 Aug 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150125