R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.

The only defence put forward by the respondents in this writ petition for the refusal to refund the amount paid by the petitioner under the mistaken notion that tax was payable even though it was not required to be paid, is that the refund is permissible only when the person who paid the amount is found to be one who was required to pay the tax, and that the amount, refund of which is claimed is in excess of what be was required to be paid as tax It is not in dispute that even though proceedings were initiated under section 148 of the Act, those proceedings were dropped by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that there was no chargeable income, on which tax could be levied. When he passed that order, he had before him the return which had been filed by the petitioner, wherein the income for the relevant assessment year was shown as "nil" and the details of the amounts paid as advance tax were also set out. The petitioner had paid Rs. 3, 324 on September 6, 1982, a similar sum of Rs. 3, 324, on December 13, 1982, and yet another sum of Rs. 37, 160 on March 2, 1983, in all totalling Rs. 43, 808. The Income-tax Officer did not find any inaccuracy in t