TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (3) TMI 605
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars 1994-95 and 1995-96. The said sales tax was assessed and collected from the petitioner on sale of "poultry feed" manufactured by the petitioner out of ingredients purchased from outside the State. In W.P. No. 4851 of 1999 the petitioner is seeking a direction in nature of writ from the respondents for refund of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 assessed and collected from the petitioner for the same assessment years. 2.. It is not disputed that the respondents completed final assessment of petitioner for the years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 under the provisions of the relevant Sales Tax Act and the petitioner in compliance of the said assessment paid the tax. It is not necessary to mention the quantum. The assessment became final. This is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment in favour of the other manufacturer obliges the State to refund the amount of sales tax collected from the present petitioner also. It is argued that the judgment in favour of the petitioner in Srinivasa Poultry's case [1999] 114 STC 67 (AP) is a "judgment in rem" and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to benefit by decision in the said judgment. It is argued that the provisions of the Act bar filing of any suit for refund and hence only remedy left is filing of a writ petition for claiming refund. 3.. We find, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, that there is no merit in the writ petitions. The learned Government Pleader stated that merely because the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther device, including filing of a writ petition, on the basis that some other manufacturer has succeeded in respect of his claim. It has to be noted in the present case that the writ petition of other manufacturer was not for seeking any declaration that the tax was unconstitutional or was collected by any authority which had no inherent jurisdiction. The petitioner therein had only sought extension of benefit of a Government Order which was meant for manufacturers complying particular conditions. Had the petitioner in Srinivasa Poultry's case [1999] 114 STC 67 (AP) challenged the vires of any provision under which the tax was collected, perhaps some arguable point could have been raised by the petitioner herein. In our view the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en twenty or more years back-is sought to be recovered on the ground of alleged discovery of mistake of law on the basis of a decision of a High Court or the Supreme Court. It is necessary to point out in this behalf that for filing an appeal or for adopting a remedy provided by the Act, the limitation generally prescribed is about three months (a little more or less does not matter). But according to the present practice, writs and suits are being filed after lapse of a long number of years and the rule of limitation applicable in that behalf is said to be three years from the date of discovery of mistake of law. The incongruity of the situation needs no emphasis. And all this because another manufacturer or assessee has obtained a decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdered in his favour just because in another assessee's case, a similar point is decided in favour of the manufacturer/assessee." The Supreme Court went further and pointed out that decisions of the Supreme Court saying to the contrary must be held to have been decided wrongly and are accordingly overruled herewith. 7. It will thus be seen that it is not open to any person to make a refund claim on basis of a decision rendered in the case of another person. It is not open for a person to say that the decision of the court of Tribunal in another person's case has enabled him to discover mistake under which he has paid tax. A petitioner cannot claim that he is entitled to prefer a writ petition or to institute a suit on discovery....