https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168344 Refund claims arising from permit-based commercial payments were held unsuitable for writ relief where the controversy turned on disputed facts, voluntary payment, delay, allocation of scheme expenses, and the existence of alternative civil remedies. The Court treated mandamus under Article 226 as inappropriate because the claim did not resemble recovery of an unlawful tax and required factual enquiry into the permit arrangement. It also held that restitution under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act was not clearly made out, since the pleadings showed only a bare assertion of mistake and the State disputed both mistake and coercion. The parties were left to pursue civil remedies. en-us Mon, 16 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:54:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168344 Refund claims arising from permit-based commercial payments were held unsuitable for writ relief where the controversy turned on disputed facts, voluntary payment, delay, allocation of scheme expenses, and the existence of alternative civil remedies. The Court treated mandamus under Article 226 as inappropriate because the claim did not resemble recovery of an unlawful tax and required factual enquiry into the permit arrangement. It also held that restitution under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act was not clearly made out, since the pleadings showed only a bare assertion of mistake and the State disputed both mistake and coercion. The parties were left to pursue civil remedies. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168344