LexD. CAWASJI & CO., ETC. ETC. versus THE STATE OF MYSORE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
n c Ill D. CAWASJI i CO., BTC. BTC. v. THB STATE OF MYSORB & ANR. October 29, 1974 [K. K. MATHEW AND A. ALAGilUSWAMl, 1J~] Corutitution of india, 1950-Art. 226-Paymerst of taxes made under mlstilkl of law-Period of limitation wh!n commentes-Jurlsdiction of tM High Court. The appellants paid certain amounts . to the government a8 excise dutY and education ce~s for the years 1951-52 to 1965-66 in one case an~ from 1951-Sl ~ 1961-62 in the oth~r .. The High_ C~mrt ~t.ruq. down the p~ovi~ions of ~e.~ levant Acts as unconstitutional. In wnt petitions before the Htgh Court claunlbD refund; the appellants contended that the payments in question were made by them under mistake of law; that the mistake was discovered when the High Court o;tfuck down the provisions a~ unconstitutional and that the petitions were therefore in time. .But the Hlah Court dismissed them on the around of inordiliate delly. Dismissina the appeale. HELD: Where a suh wut lie to recover moneys pald under a mist&ke bt lao. a writ petition for refund of tu within the period of Umitatlou woUld U&, · Por llllDI a writ petition to rewver the money paid under o mistake bf Jaw the start. ina point of limitation ls from the date of which the jud~ot decl•rbtl aa veitl the particular law under which the tax was paid was. rendered. £\len itt case~ "here it is IDed within thrr.e years, the court bas a discretion, bavl.na resard • ~ facts and circumslances ot each case not to entertain the appl.katlon. [!ll3H; Sl4A•B] . StMe of Madhya Pradtm v. Bhailal BhtJI and Olhtr.J [1964] 6 S.C.lt 261 re- lied on, State of KeJYJia v. if..luminium Indusirie.r Ltd, (1965) 16 S.T;C. 689• fe- E · ferred to and Trilok Chand Motich4nd and Others v. H. B. Muniht. CoirinilssitJ- ner of Sales Tax, Bonibay (1970) 2S S.T.C. 289 held inapplicable~ G in the instant case having regard to the conduct of the appellants in jiot claiM- big the. amountS in the earlier writ petitions without any iustification. there is llO justification in interferitig with discretioil exercised by the High Court ill disfu.isl.; i~~ the writ petiti~ris. The appellants did riot pray for i:efurid of the arrioun~ pa1d .bY way ,of ~ for, the years l~Sl-52 to 1965-6~ and ~ey gave tto re~soDJ before the .H1g.b ~urt 10 • thest: ,Petittons why .theY, -d1~ n,ot m*.e . th_e pray~r -~~ ~fut1_d of the a~ou~ts. . p~d , d\1~1118 the yea~ 19, 9..l}.~_st19Ii: /1 v~~c!•Di .E!l!![ell.~\)' of unnecessary legal proceedtnSS should be the IUm of iill colrtfS. The aptJe11a~ should not be allowed to split up theif dalm for refund and fi1e writ pet!Hdn! Jii · a piece-meal fas.~IC?_n. If tlie ~tppella_rits could b!lv~ but did n~t, · without. a~y _legal lustiflcation claim rC.fund of t~e amounts, paid durlt~s tJte years In questlo1 n In fh• earlier writ f!etltlons there Is no reason why th~ should ee atlowed to c aim thi amoUnts by filini writ petitions apln. [S 17B-q In the second batch qf appeals the reason why this Court did .~ot So Jrlto ~o guestlon C?f the validity of the .Act was that relevant materials were n~t .1-'l!l(.:Cd 6efofe the court by the appellant for' successfully challenglrig its validity and ~hey were therefor to blame themselves. [S18H] CML APPELLATE JUiliJ>icnoN : Civn Appeal&. NC~t. 437. 4St; 452-476 and 477-459 of 1974. Il Aweals _by. Special i..eav~ from the itidgme~t & Ordei .ditedj~ 3(1;& November, 1972 o'f. the Mysore.High Court in W.Ps. ~(;i .. ~ 2671, 2673~2681/68, 181, 19~199, 1~~195, 200---21}4J61; 1 .. 1-8~J93j61 and 265~2665/68 tespettiftly. . . . --~ - 2-Ut9SupCJI75 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975] 2 S.C.ll. R. 1. Kolah, (In CAs Nos. 450.451, 453, 468--471, ~79--484 of 74 only) A.. Jagannath Shetty, K. /.John, I. B. Dadacr1anji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants. B. Sen (In CA. No. 437/74) Chandrakant ~aju, Advocate for Karnatka (In CA. No. 477 j74) and M. Veerappa, for the Respon- dents. The Judgment of the Caurt was delivered by 1. Civil Appeals Nos. 437--451 & 477-489 of 1974. MATHEW, J.-The appellants filed writ petitions before the High CourL of Mysore under Article 226 of the Constitution for a declara- tion that. the Mysore Elementary Education Act, 1941, and the amendments to it by the Mysore Elementary Education (Amendment Act XII of 1955) providing for levy and collection of Education Cess 00 items on which Education Cess is being levied as prescribed in the schedules ct the respective Acts were beyond th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.