Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (2.84 seconds)Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 11B in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
U.P. Pollution Control Board And Others vs M/S. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. And ... on 24 January, 2001
(v) It is one thing to say that the High Court has no power under Article
226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus for making refund of
the money illegally collected. It is yet another thing to say that such power
can be exercised sparingly depending on facts and circumstances of each
case. For instance, where the facts are not in dispute, where the collection
of money was without the authority of law and there was no case of undue
enrichment, there is no good reason to deny a relief of refund to the citizens.
But even in cases where collection of cess, levy or tax is held to be
unconstitutional or invalid, refund is not an automatic consequence but may
be refused on several grounds depending on facts and circumstances of a
given case. (Vide U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd.)
Salonah Tea Company Ltd vs Superintendent Of Taxes Nowgong & Ors. ... on 18 December, 1987
(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.)
Messrs. Burmah Construction Co vs The State Of Orissa And Ors on 26 October, 1961
(i) Normally, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will
not be entertained to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of a
contract or a tort to pay an amount of money due to the claimants. The
aggrieved party will have to agitate the question in a civil suit. But an order
for payment of money may be made in a writ proceeding, in enforcement of
statutory functions of the State or its officers. (Vide Burmah Construction
Co. v. State of Orissa.)