https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42024 The writ petition was not barred by limitation as it was filed within the permissible period aligned with a civil suit for recovery of illegally collected tax. The court rejected the argument to dismiss the petition under Article 226(3) of the Constitution due to the appellant's failure to raise the issue earlier. Refund of excise duty was ordered based on the principle that taxes collected without legal authority should be refunded, emphasizing constitutional limitations under Article 265 and the injustice of denying refunds despite a previous court judgment entitling others to refunds. The case was certified to involve a substantial question of law for the Supreme Court's consideration. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42024 The writ petition was not barred by limitation as it was filed within the permissible period aligned with a civil suit for recovery of illegally collected tax. The court rejected the argument to dismiss the petition under Article 226(3) of the Constitution due to the appellant's failure to raise the issue earlier. Refund of excise duty was ordered based on the principle that taxes collected without legal authority should be refunded, emphasizing constitutional limitations under Article 265 and the injustice of denying refunds despite a previous court judgment entitling others to refunds. The case was certified to involve a substantial question of law for the Supreme Court's consideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42024