CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1988) 03 BOM CK 0036

Usha Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited vs Union of India and others

Bombay High Court · Decided on 23 March 1988 · Citation: (1988) 17 ECR 147 : (1988) 36 ELT 292

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.A. Jahagirdar, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 276 of 1982
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 365 words
1.

The petitioners, on 16th March, 1980, filed a claim for refund of customs duty paid in respect of import of viscose staple fibre cleared by them in 1979. The claim for refund was based on the ground that countervailing duty on the imported goods was without the authority of law. This, in turn, was based upon certain notifications.

2.

It is not necessary to go into the details because the authorities below rejected the applications filed on behalf of the petitioner u/s 27 of the Customs Act on the ground that the applications had not been filed within the period of limitation prescribed by the said provision. The order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the applications was challenged by the petitioners in a review application which was also rejected by the Collector of Customs by his order dated 12th November 1981. The petitioners have now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for refund of the amount which has been paid, as is obvious, under mistake of law.

3.

A provision either in the Act or in the Rules made under an Act for refund of amount would not apply where the amount has been paid under a mistake of law or where the amount is collected without the authority of law. In the instant case it should be held that the amount for which applications for refund was made by the petitioners was collected without the authority of law. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a write requiring the authorities to refund the amount is, naturally, the correct remedy.

4.

There is no return to this petition. It is seen that the Assistant Collector in review have refused to refund the amount only on the ground that the applications were not made within the time prescribed by law.

5.

The petition must, therefore, succeed. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b)(ii) subject, however, to the modification that interest at 12% per annum would be payable on the amount from 25th April 1988 if by that time the same is not refunded.

6.

No order as to costs in this petition.