1968 (2) TMI 94 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the case of the appellant was true, namely, that it discovered the mistake only in January, 1967, and that the assessments were illegal were all matters which the High Court had to examine after affidavits had been filed/ Held that - Appeal allowed against the orders rejecting the writ petitions and direct the High Court to admit the writ petitions and hear the matters out in the normal way. Since we have granted special leave against the orders rejecting the writ petitions, it is not necessary to consider whether the High Court erred in refusing to certify the appeals under Article 133. There will therefore be no orders on the appeals against the orders refusing to certify the appeals. The costs of these appeals will abide by the decision of the High Court in the writ petitions

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against orders of High Court of Andhra Pradesh regarding writ petitions for issue of writs of certiorari and mandamus in respect of assessments made under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act for the years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, and 1963-64 in relation to purchase and sale of cotton.

Analysis:
The appellant purchased cotton in Andhra Pradesh and sold it in the course of inter-State trade. The appellant paid purchase tax under the State Act and received refunds for inter-State sales under the Central Act. However, the Commercial Tax Officer assessed sales tax under the Central Act for these inter-State sales, leading to the appellant paying taxes under a misapprehension. The appellant discovered this mistake in 1967 and requested cancellation of assessment orders and refund of taxes, which the respondents failed to do.

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, citing delay and suggesting a civil suit as a more appropriate remedy. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the High Court should have examined if the appellant paid taxes under a mistake of law and when the mistake was discovered. Referring to precedents, the Court emphasized the State's duty to refund taxes levied by mistake of law. The Court highlighted that the High Court should investigate facts upon notice of a mistake and refund within the limitation period.

The Court criticized the High Court for not assessing the merits of the case before rejecting the petitions, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination post-affidavits. The Court allowed the appeals against rejection of writ petitions, directing the High Court to admit and hear the matters appropriately. The Court did not address the refusal to certify appeals under Article 133, and costs were to be decided by the High Court. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found fault with the High Court's summary dismissal of the writ petitions, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the appellant's claims and the State's duty to refund taxes paid under a mistake of law. The Court directed the High Court to reconsider the writ petitions, highlighting the importance of examining the facts and circumstances before making a decision.