9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (10) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of turnover so disclosed. Accordingly, for the last two quarters of the year 1950 he made the necessary deposit. Assessment for these periods was made on 27th September, 1951, and 28th September, 1951, (exhibit p-3 and exhibit p-4) and the appellant was found entitled to a refund of Rs. 209-11-0 and Rs. 290-4-0 respectively for the two quarters. In spite of applications being filed for refund of the amount, the appellant was not paid back the amounts. For the first quarter of the year 1951, he again made a similar deposit and according to the assessment order passed on 8th May, 1953, he was ordered to pay Rs. 1,335. He filed an appeal against the assessment order depositing the extra amount of tax assessed against him. In appeal, the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under which refund is claimable. Section 13 provides that where the Commissioner is satisfied that the tax paid by the dealer exceeds the amount assessed, he shall cause a refund to be made of the amount. It will thus be seen that the Commissioner is under a statutory obligation to refund the amount. Rules 40 to 48 framed under the Sales Tax Act deal with the procedure to be followed in making the refund. A dealer who wants a refund of the excess tax has to make an application for refund stating the grounds on which the refund is claimed. The proper Sales Tax Authority then directs the amount to be refunded and within thirty days of such an order the amount has to be paid back to the applicant. Under certain circumstances, the amount can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That article provides that a suit for relief on the ground of mistake should be filed within three years from the date when the mistake becomes known to the plaintiff. In the instant case, the deposit was certainly made under a mistake of fact that the amount deposited was due as sales tax. The mistake may have been that certain items not liable to tax were included in the return as liable, or some other mistake of fact. According to Article 96, the suit has to be filed within three years from the date of the discovery of the mistake. The mistake in this case was discovered on the date when the assessment was made. However, we do not think that Article 96 has application to the case. An assessee who pays money in excess of the proper amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limitation Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for money due under a statutory liability to pay it; so the suit is, I think, within Article 120; in other words, the period of limitation is six years, which begins to run from the time when a demand for the money is made by persons who could give the receipts required by the section." From these observations, it is clear that Article 120 applies to cases where an officer of the Government is bound under a statute to make a payment. Similarly, in Municipal Board of Ghazipur v. Deokinandan Prasad[1914] I.L.R. 36 All. 555; A.I.R. 1914 All. 338. , it was held that a suit for refund of excess amount paid as octroi duty was governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act. We hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
