9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refund of tax paid under a mistake of law for assessment year 1970-71; Validity of r. 19A(3) of the I.T. Rules; Challenge to assessment and appellate orders; Interpretation of the principle of refund under mistake of law; Application of the principle in the present case; Timeliness of the petition in seeking refund; Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution; Statutory finality of orders; Quashing of orders based on an invalid rule; Direction for re-computation of benefits under s. 80J of the Income Tax Act. Analysis: The High Court considered the petition filed by M/s. J.K. Synthetics Limited seeking a refund of tax paid under a mistake of law for the assessment year 1970-71. The petitioner challenged the validity of r. 19A(3) of the I.T. Rules, which led to the mistake in calculation. The court acknowledged the principle of refund under a mistake of law, citing precedents like STO v. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Saraf and State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries. The mistake in this case arose due to the application of the invalid rule in calculating the benefit under s. 80J of the I.T. Act. The court noted that the petitioner became aware of the mistake in 1977 and promptly filed the petition in 1978, within the three-year limitation period from the date of knowledge. The court rejected the argument of laches raised by the Commissioner's counsel, emphasizing that the petitioner diligently pursued its remedy once the mistake was discovered. The court also highlighted the distinction between finality of orders and the legality of the levy, stating that an order based on an invalid rule remains void and subject to challenge. Relying on the decision in Raja J.P.N. Singh's case, the court held that the petitioner's only recourse was to approach the court for relief, as the orders based on the ultra vires rule were illegal. The court quashed the orders related to the benefit under s. 80J and directed the ITO to recompute the benefit for both phases of expansion in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the court ordered the refund of the amount found due after recalculation and awarded costs to the petitioner. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, emphasizing the importance of rectifying the errors arising from the application of an invalid rule, and ensuring the correct computation of benefits under the Income Tax Act. The judgment underscored the principle of refund under a mistake of law and upheld the petitioner's right to seek redress through the court within the prescribed limitation period.
|
