9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner No. 2 is the proprietor of the said concern. The petitioners are transporters acting as a common carrier and running business of transporting goods in and outside the State of West Bengal. Thus the petitioners are not dealers within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. They are also not a casual trader within the meaning of West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. Their case is that although they were not liable for taxation, yet they used to be intercepted in course of transport of goods outside the State of West Bengal and demanded payment of tax under section 4C/4D of the Act of 1941. Trucks loaded with goods were detained illegally until tax under section 4C/4D/11 or 14 is paid. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en written on January 10, 2000. Their case is that when on January 10, 2000 they came to know from their advocate that they are entitled to get refund of the tax already paid, they applied to Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Commercial Tax Officer for refund of advance sales tax/tax illegally collected or realised without any authority of law. To counter this argument learned State representative submits that limitation will run from the date of publication of the judgment and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner, having not been made within the period of limitation, petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 7.. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the date of pronouncement of a judicial decision and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of mistake of law, a mistake can be said to be discovered when the court has rendered a decision taking a particular view, but knowledge of the date of decision cannot be attributed to a person concerned particularly when by proper evidence he satisfied that he did learn about the same at a later date. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the date of decision of a court of law would always be the date of discovery of mistake, particularly when the judgment was unreported one. In [1990] 78 STC 404 (SC) (Mahabir Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh) referred to above, it was held that limitation did not start until the date on which the plaintiff discovers the mistake with reasonable diligence. In this case, the fact was that the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came to know of the judgment on January 10, 2000 and this fact has not been disputed. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court as referred to above, the knowledge of the petitioner from their advocate's letter should be taken as true. The bona fide claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected relying simply on some technicalities. In a case reported in AIR 1980 SC 1037 (Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana) where public bodies under colour of public laws recovered people's money later discovered to be erroneous levies, the court held that there is no law of limitation specially for public bodies on the virtue of returning what was wrongly recovered to whom it belongs. When there is no dispute that the petitioners came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
