9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Kerala had held that the limitation to lay the suit started to the appellants on January 1, 1968 when the igh Court had earlier delivered the judgment quashing the assessment of agricultural income tax upon the estate of Raja Mananikraman and his estate is liable only to the extent of 1/693 share of that estate. The facts are not in dispute. The agricultural Income Tax Officer has made an ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecreed by the trial court in 1976. But on appeal, as stated earlier, the Division Bench held that it was barred by limitation. Thus this appeal by special leave. Shri A.S. Nambiar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants had discovered the mistake on October 5, 1971 when this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State against the orders passed ln O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence." Therefore, if any period of limitation is to be excluded from the prescribed period of limitation, the party necessarily has to satisfy any of the appropriate provisions in Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This is not one of such cases. Under those circumstances, the limitation having begun to run from Januar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by this Court. We do not have that fact situation in this case. The appellants is a party to the proceedings and at his instance,the assessment of agricultural income tax was quashed as referred to hereinbefore and having had the assessment quashed the cause of action had arisen to him to lay the suit for refund unless it is refunded by the State. The knowledge of the mistake of law cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
