Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies to a suit for refund of excess sales tax paid, and the period of limitation for such a suit is six years from the date of the cause of action for refund.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit by the Additional District Judge, Satna, on 29-7-1957.

( 2 ) THE appellant, who was a dealer in Satna, was liable to be assessed to sales tax in accordance with the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, as applied to Vindhya Pradesh. According to the rules framed for payment of sales tax, it was necessary for him to file a return of his turnover during every quarter along with a deposit of the tax payable on the amount of turnover so disclosed. Accordingly, for the last two quarters of the year 1950 he made the necessary deposit. Assessment for these periods was made on 27-9-1951 and 28-9-1951 (Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4) and the appellant was found entitled to a refund of Rs. 209-11-0 and Rs. 290-4-0 respectively for the two quarters. In spite of applications being filed for refund of the amount, the appellant was not paid back the amounts. For the first quarter of the year 1951, he again made a similar deposit and according to the assessment order passed on 8-5-1953 he was ordered to pay Rs. 1335/ -. He filed an appeal against the assessment order depositing the extra amount of tax assessed against him. In appeal, the case was remanded and on 6-3-1954 an order was passed ordering a refund of Rs. 1337/- (Ex. P-7 ). Once again, the appellant applied for refund on 6-3-1954, but no orders were passed on that application. The fact remained that the amount was not refunded. Accordingly, he filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, on 24-11-1956 for refund of the three amounts. ( 3 ) THE respondent (State Government) did not dispute that the appellant was entitled to refund of the three amounts, as claimed. It was, however, pleaded that as no orders on the application for refund had been passed, the appellant could not maintain the suit. Further, it was pleaded that the claim was barred by time.

( 4 ) THE trial Court found that the suit was maintainable, but dismissed the claim as barred by time.

( 5 ) THE only question on which arguments were addressed to us by the parties is the question of limitation. According to Shri G. P. Singh for the appellant, Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies to the case and therefore the claim should be held to be within time. According to Shri R. J. Bhave, for the State, the case is governed by Article 96 of the Limitation Act, He concedes that the claim for Rs. 1337/- due as refund for the third quarter is within time and should have been decreed. He disputes the claim for the refund of the amounts for the last two quarters of 1950 only.

( 6 ) BEFORE we discuss the question of limitation we may refer to the provisions of the Sales Tax Act and the rules under which refund is claimable. Section 13 provides that where the Commissioner is satisfied that the tax paid by the dealer exceeds the amount assessed, he shall cause a refund to be made of the amount. It will thus be seen that the Commissioner is under a statutory obligation to refund the amount. Rules 40 to 48 framed under the Sales Tax Act deal with the procedure to be followed in making the refund. A dealer who wants a refund of the excess tax has to make an application for refund stating the grounds on which the refund is claimed. The proper Sales Tax Authority then directs the amount to be refunded and within thirty days of such an order the amount has to be paid back to the applicant. Under certain circumstances, the amount can be refunded towards the tax due for the following quarters.

( 7 ) THE learned judge of the trial Court held that Article 16 of the Limitation Act applied to the case and the suit should, therefore, have been filed within one year from the date on which the refund became due. Shri G. P. Singh points out that the amount was not deposited under protest as required by Article 16. The reason for the deposit; in the instant case, was that under Section 22 of the Sales Tax Act every appeal had to be