SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(Ori) 117

S.ACHARYA, S.BARMAN
M. ABDUL HASSAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.K.Kar, R.KAR, R.Sharma, RANJIT MOHANTY

BARMAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are dealers in excisable commodities inter alia foreign liquor. The point which arises in these writ petitions is whether a writ of mandamus can be issued for refund of countervailing duty illegally -- by mistake -- collected by a notification under Section 27 of the Bihar and Orissa excise Act (Act 2 of 1915 hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated March 31, 1961.

( 2 ) THESE cases arise out of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyani Stores v. Stale of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1686 decided on September 21, 1965 where their lordships of the Supreme Court, on an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, declared that the said notification enhancing the duty on foreign liquor by Rs. 30-00 per L. P. gallon was unenforceable. These writ petitions were filed in the month of August 1967 for refund of the countervailing duty illegally collected from the petitioners obviously under a mistake.

( 3 ) THE first question is: Is the petitioners' claim for refund barred by limitation? article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to Section 17 of the present limitation Act prescribes as per







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top