9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de. - Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1971, - - - Dated:- 28-3-1985 - MURTAZA FAZAL ALI S. AND MISRA R.B. JJ. U.R. Lalit, Senior Advocate (S.K. Gambhir, Ashok Mahajan and Mrs. S. Kriplani, Advocates, with him), for the respondents. H.K. Puri, Advocate, for the appellant. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by R.B. MISRA, J.- The present appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment dated 28th April, 1969, of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. The facts leading to this appeal are brief. The respondents are the owners of Jaora Sugar Mills situated at Jaora in the earlier State of Madhya Bharat. The erstwhile State of Jaora merged in the State of Madhya Bharat. After the merger the Madhya Bharat Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1948, came into force. By a notification No. 5163/XXX(49) dated 5th September, 1949, the Madhya Bharat Government in exercise of the powers vested under the said Act included "sugar " in the list of articles as an essential commodity. By another notification No. 5166/XXX(49) dated the 5th September, 1949, the Madhya Bharat Government delegated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to fix a price which be called supply price or to impose and collect levy as "Sugar Fund "; that it was illegal and unconstitutional for the Director of Civil Supplies to fix different ex factory prices for different sugar mills in the same State; that it was illegal and unconstitutional to collect money through certain mills for creating sugar fund when other factories in the same State were being exempted from doing so; that there was clear discrimination in fixing ex factory price of sugar in respect of respondents' mill lower than ex factory price fixed for certain other mills in the State without there being a rational basis for the same; and that the levy and collection of certain money from the respondents being without lawful authority and without legislative competence, the State was bound to refund the same. The State resisted the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents and refuted the allegation on all points. The trial court decided all the issues against the plaintiffs and consequently it dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit for refund of Rs. 50,000 deposited by plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omitted to decide the question whether the particular purchasers can recover hereafter from the plaintiffs whatever they had collected in excess of the ex factory sale price on the ground that it need not be determined in this case. Feeling aggrieved the State, has come up in appeal. It vainly tried to support its stand that the recovery of Rs. 50,000 from the respondents was perfectly lawful and proper and there was no discrimination as contemplated by article 14 of the Constitution. On the question of refund of the amount to the plaintiffs-respondents reliance was placed on Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1961] 12 STC 357 (SC); [1962] 1 SCR 549. In that case the appellants who were registered dealers under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, used to collect sales tax from the purchasers on all sales effected by them, including sales to dealers in other States. They were assessed to and paid tax on their turnover which included sales outside the State of Orissa. After the decision of this Court in State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. [1953] 4 STC 133 (SC); [1953] SCR 1069 the dealers applied under section 14 of the Act, for refund of tax paid on the ground tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and if it is established that the payment, even though it be of a tax, has been made by the party labouring under a mistake of law, the party receiving the money is bound to repay or return it though it might have been paid voluntarily subject, however, to questions of estoppel, waiver, limitation or the like. Recently this Court in Amar Nath Om Parkash v. State of Punjab [1986] 62 STC 130 (SC); (1984) 2 SCALE 769 had the occasion to consider the question of refund to the dealers in a similar situation and it observed: "...we do not see how a mere declaration that the levy and collection of fee in excess of Rs. 2 per hundred would automatically vest in the dealer the right to get at the excess amount when in fact he did not bear the burden of it and when the moral and equitable owner of it was the consumer-public to whom the burden had been passed on. The primary purpose of section 23A is seen on the face of it; it prevents the refund of licence fee by the market committee to dealers, who have already passed on the burden of such fee to the next purchaser of the agricultural produce and who want to unjustly enrich themselves by obtaining the refund from the market commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
