1953 (10) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n O.S. No. 110 of 1947. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The facts are briefly these. The plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that the levies, impositions and collections of sales tax from them by the defendant, the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Vizagapatam (now the State of Andhra represented by the Collector of Vizagapatam), for the years 1944-45 and 1945-46 were ille....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le? 5.. To what reliefs are plaintiffs entitled? He treated issue (3), as a preliminary issue, and held that the suit was barred by limitation under Section 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, prescribing a limitation of six months, as it was filed only on 5th November, 1947, whereas the assessment orders were passed on 29th March, 1946, and 1st March, 1947. He rejected the plaintiffs' content....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....long after the lower Court's judgment) in the State of Madras represented by the District Collector of Tinnevelly v. A.M.N.A. Abdul Kadar Tharaganar Firm(1). I held there that a suit for recover- ing an amount said to have been collected illegally from the plaintiff as sales tax by the State is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, giving three years, and that Section 18 of the Madras Gene....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... land revenue. So, prima facie, the lower Court judgment must be set aside, as erroneous, unless the ruling relied on by Mr. Ramanarasu will not apply to the facts of this case. Mr. E. Venkatesan, for the learned Government Pleader, frankly admit- ted that he could not distinguish the facts of this case from the facts in that case. He also conceded that the above ruling, relied on by Mr. Ramanaras....