TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h January, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. At the outset, it may be mentioned that six writ petitions were decided by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order but appeals have been filed only in respect of four cases. 2. In the writ petitions, the Respondents had assailed a public notice bearing No. 28-ETC(PN)/87 dated 15th October, 1987 issued by the Government of India. This public notice embodied a policy for export of garments for three calendar years commencing from 1988 to 1990. A quota distribution scheme was set up in terms of paragraph 7 of the public notice. We need not go into the details of the scheme except to note that the Respondents had to apply for making exports of garments on payment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court, are no longer in vogue and the Union of India has no intention for their revival in the immediate future. He says that these appeals can be disposed of leaving the questions open lest those may require to be agitated at a future date. We dismiss the appeals accordingly on such statement." 6. In the meanwhile, sometime in 1989 itself three of the Respondents before us filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the public notice and seeking a refund of the premium paid. When the writ petitions came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge noticed the facts of the case, including the decision of the Division Bench as well as the order passed by the Supreme Court, and concluded that the Respondents were entitled to a r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anguage of the order of the Supreme Court leaving the questions of law open 'lest those may require to be agitated at a future date.' 11. Nevertheless, we have examined the decision of the Division Bench with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and do not find any reason to take view contrary to that already expressed by the Division Bench. All the contentions that have been urged before us were advanced before the Division Bench and were considered and rejected by the Division Bench. This is not an appropriate case where the matter should be reopened at the level of the High Court. 12. The next contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General is that if the refund of the premium is granted to the Respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Supreme Court in Mahabir Kishore and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 1 = 1989 (43) E.L.T. 205 (S.C.) that a tax paid under a mistake of law is refundable under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. For this proposition, the Supreme Court relied upon an earlier decision in the case of Sales Tax Officer v. Kanhaiya Lal, 1959 SCR 1350. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in directing the Union to refund the premium collected without any authority of law and in fact unconstitutionally from the Respondents. 16. Consequently, we reject three of the appeals filed by the Union and direct refund of the premium to the Respondents within a period of six ....