TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (2) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. The respondent-mills was, a dealer registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. In respect of certain. sales effected by it, it was found liable to pay sales tax under the said Act as determined by the assessment order dated May 18, 1954. The respondent did not question the order of assessment by way of an appeal but instituted a suit on December 20, 1955, being O.S. No. 402 of 1956 on the original side of the Bombay High Court claiming refund of a sum of Rs. 65,187 on the basis that the said amount was paid by him under a mistake of law. The respondent relied upon the decision of this Court in [1955] 6 STC 446; [1955] 2 SCR 603 titled Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar as furnishing the cause of action for the suit, since it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he contentions as well as the factual basis of the contentions raised in the writ petition but without specifically denying each averment individually. However, before the writ petition came up for hearing, a detailed counter-affidavit was filed denying each and every fact on the basis of which the respondent claimed the relief of refund in the said writ petition. The Division Bench which heard the writ petition observed that the authorities did not specifically deny the several material facts contained in the writ petition in their first counter and that they chose to do so only after nine years when the writ petition came up for hearing. On that basis, the Division Bench held that there was no real controversy as to the material facts an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and had recorded a finding thereon, in which situation we would not have been inclined to remit the matter back to the appellate authority as we are proposing to do. But in this case, the High Court has held the respondent entitled to refund merely because the first counter-affidavit filed by the authorities in the High Court did not contain fact- by-fact denial. This, in our opinion, was not reasonable thing to do in the circumstances when there was a controversy as to relevant facts. In any event, in the second counter-affidavit filed by the authorities in the High Court, there was a denial fact-by-fact. We are, therefore, of the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this particular case and, having regard to ....