Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 154 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Salonah Tea Company Ltd vs Superintendent Of Taxes Nowgong & Ors. ... on 18 December, 1987

Joshi Technologies International vs Union Of India & on 16 June, 2016

(Emphasis supplied) Page 49 of 80 HC-NIC Page 49 of 80 Created On Sat Jun 18 03:17:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/2556/2015 JUDGMENT 14.4 Thus, in view of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong (supra), in case where money is paid by mistake, the period of limitation prescribed is three years from the date when the mistake was known. Besides, section 17 of the Limitation Act inter alia provides that when a suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake, the period of limitation would not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the mistake, or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. Therefore, in case where money is paid under a mistake, the limitation would begin to run only when the applicant comes to know of such mistake or with reasonable diligence could have discovered such mistake. Adverting to the case at hand, the mistake is in the nature of a mistake of law. It appears that the legal position was not clear and hence, pursuant to representations made by the trade and field formations, the CBEC was required to issue the circular dated 07.01.2014 clarifying the issue. As noticed earlier, the petitioner had all along, right from July 2004 been paying Education Cess and subsequently, from the year 2007 was paying Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess, till April 2014. It was only when the Circular dated 07.01.2014 came to be issued by the CBEC, clarifying the issue, that the petitioner came to know about its mistake. Considering the nature of the mistake and the fact that the issue was not free from doubt till the above circular came to be issued by the CBEC, it also cannot be said that the petitioner could with reasonable diligence have discovered the mistake. It appears that it is only sometime after the Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess Page 50 of 80 HC-NIC Page 50 of 80 Created On Sat Jun 18 03:17:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/2556/2015 JUDGMENT came to be paid for the month of April 2014 that the petitioner came to know about its mistake and in July 2014, it filed the application for refund before the second respondent. Since the period of limitation begins to run only from the time when the applicant comes to know of the mistake, the application made by the petitioner was well within the prescribed period of limitation.
Gujarat High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

Cummins Technologies India Private ... vs Union Of India And 2 Ors on 28 August, 2023

38. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. M/s Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) in our view would assist the case of the Respondents. Where the duty has been levied without authority of law or without reference to any statutory authority or the specific provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder have no application, the decision will be guided by the general law and the date of limitation would be the starting point when the mistake or the error comes to light, but as held in the said decision, in making claims for refund before the departmental authority, an assessee is bound within the four corners of the statute and the Rules framed thereunder must be adhered to; the authorities functioning under the Customs Act are bound by the provisions of the Customs Act and if the proceedings are taken under the Customs Act by the department, the provisions of limitation prescribed in the Customs Act will prevail.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Messrs Swastik Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 24 February, 2016

(iv) There is a distinction between cases where a claimant approaches the High Court seeking the relief of obtaining only refund and those where refund is sought as a consequential relief after striking down the order of assessment, etc. While a petition praying for mere issue of a writ of mandamus to the State to refund the money alleged to have been illegally collected is not ordinarily maintainable, if the allegation is that the assessment was without a jurisdiction and the taxes collected was without authority of law and therefore the respondents had no authority to retain the money collected without any authority of law, the High Court has the power to direct refund in a writ petition. (Vide Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. v. Supdt. of Taxes.)
Calcutta High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Onshore Construction Company ... vs State Of Gujarat on 27 February, 2020

Therefore, by claiming to retain the tax which has been collected without the authority of law, the Government cannot enrich itself and it is liable to make restitution to the person who had made payment under mistake or under coercion vide (1) Patel India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1300 (at p.1304), paras 15 to 18; (2) D. Cawasji and Co. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1975 SC 813 (supra): (3) Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 971; (4) Commissioner v. Auriaya Chamber, 1986 (25) ELT 867 (at p.872) : (AIR 1986 SC 1556 at p.1559) (arising out of departmental proceedings for refund of sales tax), paras 11 to 17, 28 and 31; (5) Salonath Tea Co. v. Supdt. of Taxes, 1988 (33) ELT 249: (AIR 1990 SC 772) (Paras 46 to 51 and 55); (6) Ayurveda Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1989 SC 1230 (para 48), etc..
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Messrs Aalidhra Texcraft Engineers vs Union Of India on 12 December, 2024

(Emphasis supplied) 14.4 Thus, in view of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong (supra), in case where money is paid by mistake, the period of limitation prescribed is three years from the date Page 28 of 43 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Dec 20 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:55:02 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14554/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2024 undefined when the mistake was known. Besides, section 17 of the Limitation Act inter alia provides that when a suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake, the period of limitation would not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the mistake, or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it. Therefore, in case where money is paid under a mistake, the limitation would begin to run only when the applicant comes to know of such mistake or with reasonable diligence could have discovered such mistake. Adverting to the case at hand, the mistake is in the nature of a mistake of law. It appears that the legal position was not clear and hence, pursuant to representations made by the trade and field formations, the CBEC was required to issue the circular dated 07.01.2014 clarifying the issue. As noticed earlier, the petitioner had all along, right from July 2004 been paying Education Cess and subsequently, from the year 2007 was paying Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess, till April 2014. It was only when the Circular dated 07.01.2014 came to be issued by the CBEC, clarifying the issue, that the petitioner came to know about its mistake. Considering the nature of the mistake and the fact that the issue was not free from doubt till the above circular came to be issued by the CBEC, it also cannot be said that the petitioner could with reasonable diligence have discovered the mistake. It appears that it is only sometime after the Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess came to be paid for the month of April 2014 that the petitioner came to know about its mistake and in July 2014, it filed the application Page 29 of 43 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Dec 20 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 20 22:55:02 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14554/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2024 undefined for refund before the second respondent. Since the period of limitation begins to run only from the time when the applicant comes to know of the mistake, the application made by the petitioner was well within the prescribed period of limitation.
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Punj Lloyd Limited vs Commissioner, Cgst-Delhi East on 18 January, 2024

In view of the liberty granted by the High Court to the appellant to make an application for refund raising all averments and assertions, the appellant filed the refund application. We are therefore of the opinion that it is Clause(ec) which would apply in the facts of the present case, as the provisions whereof are couched in very wide words. Clause(ec) not only refers to any judgement or decree, but also to any order or direction as a consequence of which the duty becomes refundable. We may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Salona Tea Company Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of Taxes Nowgong & Ors.- 1988 (33) ELT 249, where the issue of bar of limitation for refund of tax or duty paid or collected without the authority of law, observed was considered as under:-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Church Of South India Trust ... vs Vs on 28 April, 2016

(iv) There is a distinction between cases where a claimant approaches the High Court seeking the relief of obtaining only refund and those where refund is sought as a consequential relief after striking down the order of assessment, etc. While a petition praying for mere issue of a writ of mandamus to the State to refund the money alleged to have been illegally collected is not ordinarily maintainable, if the allegation is that the assessment was without a jurisdiction and the taxes collected was without authority of law and therefore the respondents had no authority to retain the money collected without any authority of law, the High Court has the power to direct refund in a writ petition. (Vide Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. v. Supdt. of Taxes .)
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - M S Rao - Full Document

Sri Sudha Constructions vs I.T.I. Limited on 21 August, 2017

(iv) There is a distinction between cases where a claimant approaches the High Court seeking the relief of obtaining only refund and those where refund is sought as a consequential relief after striking down the order of assessment, etc. While a petition praying for mere issue of a writ of mandamus to the State to refund the money alleged to have been illegally collected is not ordinarily maintainable, if the allegation is that the assessment was without a jurisdiction and the taxes collected was without authority of law and therefore the respondents had no authority to retain the money collected without any authority of law, the High Court has the power to direct refund in a writ petition. (Vide Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. v. Supdt. of Taxes.)
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Kali Charan Mahto vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 9 July, 2018

(iv) There is a distinction between cases where a claimant approaches the High Court seeking the relief of obtaining only refund and those where refund is sought as a consequential relief after striking down the order of assessment, etc. While a petition praying for mere issue of a writ of mandamus to the State to refund the money alleged to have been illegally collected is not -4- ordinarily maintainable, if the allegation is that the assessment was without a jurisdiction and the taxes collected was without authority of law and therefore the respondents had no authority to retain the money collected without any authority of law, the High Court has the power to direct refund in a writ petition. (Vide Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. v. Supdt. of Taxes.)
Jharkhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A K Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next