9911796707
TMI Blog1956 (3) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7th January, 1950, to the 31st March, 1950, and paid Rs. 4,030-14-3 as sales tax on the sales for which it is alleged that the petitioner could not be made liable. The mistake was not discovered till sometime in September, 1952, and the petitioner applied for refund of this amount under section 12 of the Act. This application, however, was rejected by the Excise and Tax- ation Officer, Rohtak. The revision petition filed by the petitioner on the 24th March, 1953, was also dismissed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, by his order dated the 15th January, 1954, wherein he held that the application for refund was made after the expiry of limitation. The petitioner then filed a petition for revi- sion to the Financial Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he dealers pass on the amount of tax to the customers but under the 1948 Act they are not bound to do so and they do not, so to say, act as collecting agents for the taxing authorities. It appears to me therefore that the mere fact that the Syndicate had realised certain amounts from its customers under the belief which was obviously genuine that it was liable to pay the sales tax on sales held during January to March, 1950, should not be taken into consideration when exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, once it is held that the tax was illegally collected. The invalidity of its levy and its collection is admitted by the respondent in the present case. The High Court should not hesitate to exercise its power under Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot proper to refund the amount on grounds of pro- priety even if it be assumed that the legal position is decided in favour of the assessee. Moreover, it must be remembered that in the present case admittedly the tax has been collected without the authority of law. I am also not impressed by the argument that the petitioning Syndicate should have filed a suit for the recovery of this amount of tax. This tax was assessed, levied and collected under the 1948 Act. Section 19 of this Act lays down that such orders cannot be called into question in any civil court. There is no suggestion that this amount was not paid under this Act or that it was a voluntary gift to the Department although it may be that the returns made by the Syndicate were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
