9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petition? Whether the petitioner can recover the said amount by filing a suit? Held that:- Appeal allowed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and especially in view of the fact that in this case there is no controversy or denial by the respondents as to the date when the appellant came to know of the excess payment, this appeal has to be allowed. The judgment and order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said turnover, tax was levied at 4-1/4 per cent. The assessment order was made on September 29, 1977. Subsequently the order was rectified and 1/4 per cent of tax was deleted by an order dated December 1, 1977, on the ground that groundnuts being declared goods, no additional tax can be levied. The proceedings thus became final. The petitioner says that the business was closed down in July, 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by limitation. It is then that the petitioner approached this Court. The tax on groundnuts was 3 per cent during 1974-75. It was raised to 4 per cent during 1977. Since the assessment order was passed after the said amendment came into force, the authorities seem to have imposed the higher rate of tax instead of applying the appropriate rate of tax. In this sense, the petitioner has been subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the tax on account of a subsequent decision or amendment. Admittedly more than three years had elapsed by the time the petitioner asked for refund of the said amount, which means that the suit by him for recovery of the said amount would be barred. If so, it is not possible to give relief in the writ petition as prayed for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
