https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169406 The Supreme Court held that excess surcharge collected on paddy and rice was not supported by statutory authority, because the procuring agents bought and stored the goods on their own account and the use of the word "agents" did not create a true fiduciary liability; the surcharge was therefore refundable. It further held that refund claims for money illegally collected were governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, not Article 120, so amounts claimed beyond three years were time-barred. By contrast, collections made under lawful requisition and release arrangements, and the related agreements, were enforceable and not recoverable. en-us Mon, 14 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:04:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169406 The Supreme Court held that excess surcharge collected on paddy and rice was not supported by statutory authority, because the procuring agents bought and stored the goods on their own account and the use of the word "agents" did not create a true fiduciary liability; the surcharge was therefore refundable. It further held that refund claims for money illegally collected were governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, not Article 120, so amounts claimed beyond three years were time-barred. By contrast, collections made under lawful requisition and release arrangements, and the related agreements, were enforceable and not recoverable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Dec 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169406