Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.47 seconds)Article 62 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 18 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Province Of Madras Represented By ... vs Chekka Satyanarayanamurthy on 26 April, 1951
4. Nor can Article 16, Limitation Act have any application to a case like this, where the tax was merely recoverable as arrears of land revenue, and the claim was not made by the revenue authorities on account of arrears of revenue or on account of demand recoverable as such arrears, and where the tax also had been paid within the 15 days prescribed, and had not become a tax liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. So, the only article which can be applied properly to this case is Article 62, Limitation Act, which prescribes three years, from the date when the money was received by the defendant) as the period of limitation. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is of course, not ousted. See -- 'the Province o) Madras v. Satyanarayanamurthy', (B). So Article 62 will apply under the Full Bench ruling. The learned Subordinate Judge's decision is correct. This appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Panchayat Board By Its President, ... vs The Western India Matches Company By ... on 15 December, 1938
The very wording of that section will show that it is intended 'only to cover suits for compensation or damages against tortious or criminal acts committed by Government Officers or servants or by the Government itself', and that it will not cover suits for refund of taxes illegally collected or alleged to be illegally collected, or even taxes collected in excess of sheer error. That stands to sense and common sense. Supposing, for instance, a clerk in writing out a demand order, put Rs. 9,000 for Rs. 900, and the person liable to pay the tax paid Rs. 9,000, and then filed a suit a year later for recovering the difference of Rs. 8,100, it will be sheer perversity to argue that Section 18 would apply and bar the suit as it was not filed within six months. It would be clearly a case falling within Article 62 giving three clear years, from the date of the excess payment, before limitation would operate. Fortunately, in this case, it is unnecessary to continue this discussion further, as there is a ruling of a Pull Bench of this Court in -- 'Panchayat Board, Tiruvottiyur v. Western India Matches Co.', AIR 1939 Mad 421 (FB) (A), which has held that Section 225, Madras Local Boards Act (14 of 1920), as amended by Act 11 of 1930, containing more or less the same provision and wording as Section 18 of the Sales-tax Act', will be limited to suits for compensation or damages and will be inapplicable to suits against a local board for refund of the house-tax alleged to have been illegally collected. The principle of that ruling will apply to all cases" of taxes illegally collected, and not merely to house-tax due to local boards or all taxes due to local boards.
1