https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199714 A claim for refund of cess paid under a mistake of law and fact was held time-barred because limitation under Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 17 begins when the plaintiff discovers the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. The court found that once the earlier notification had been cancelled by a later notification, the plaintiff, aware of that cancellation, could reasonably have identified the irregularity in the payments when the later notification took effect. As the plaintiff failed to prove a later date of discovery and did not satisfactorily establish discovery only in September 1965, the refund suit was barred by limitation and rejected. en-us Fri, 24 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199714 A claim for refund of cess paid under a mistake of law and fact was held time-barred because limitation under Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 17 begins when the plaintiff discovers the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. The court found that once the earlier notification had been cancelled by a later notification, the plaintiff, aware of that cancellation, could reasonably have identified the irregularity in the payments when the later notification took effect. As the plaintiff failed to prove a later date of discovery and did not satisfactorily establish discovery only in September 1965, the refund suit was barred by limitation and rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 24 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199714