Case: Suganmal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others

2. The facts leading to the petition are these. The appellant is the Managing Proprietor of Bhandari Iron and Steel Company which had its foundry at Shilnath Camp, Indore where it carried on the business of Mechanical Engineers, Iron, Brass and Malleable Iron founders and Rerollers in Steel. There was in force in the Indore State the Indore Industrial Tax Act, 1927 for the imposition of industrial tax on cotton mills. Excess profits duty was payable under Indore Excess Profits Duty Order, 1944. The company did not run any cotton mill, Still when the company was called upon to submit its returns and to deposit industrial tax whenever its balance-sheet showed profits, it did so. In all, the company paid a sum of Rs.18,234-5-2 in 1944 in advance on account of industrial tax prior to the tax being provisionally assessed by the assessing officer. The provisional assessment for the years 1941-43 was made in 1945 and for the years 1945-46 in 1946. The tax was assessed at Rs. 62,809-5-2. Deducting the amount of Rs. 18234-5-2 deposited in advance in 1944, an amount of Rs. 44,575 was deposited by the appellant on or before June 9, 1948. The tax for different years was finally assessed in 1951 and 1952. The appellant filed appeals against the various assessment orders to the appellate authority. The appeals were decided in June 1955. The appeals against the assessment of industrial tax were allowed on the ground that the company was not liable to pay industrial tax as it did not carry on any business which was liable to be assessed to that tax and the various assessment orders under appeals were quashed. No direction was, however, given by the appellate authority for the refund of tax which had been realised from the appellant3. Thereafter, the appellant approached the various officers of the State Government of Madhya Bharat for the refund of tax amounting to Rs. 1,37.770-14-2, after appropriating Rs. 37,951-7-0 to Excess Profits Duty from Rupees 1,75,722-5-2 paid by the company towards the tax and excess profits duty. The Government adjusted the amount due for excess profits duty as requested by the appellant and refunded Rs.74,961-9-0 paid subsequent to January 26, 1950 when the Constitution came into force. It however, refused to admit the claim for refund of the amount of Rs. 62,809-5-2 which had been realised from the appellant prior to that date and, therefore, refused to refund that amount4. When the Government refused to refund the amount the appellant filed the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus against the State of Madhya Bharat and the other respondents directing them to perform their statutory duty and/or to refund or cause to be refunded to the appellant the amount of Rs. 62,809-5-2 which it was alleged they were entitled in law to receive. The respondents contested the claim and the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no statutory obligation on the State to refund the amount that the order of the appellate authority did not necessarily imply an order to the State to refund the amount and that the writ of mandamus could not be issued for the purpose of refund of the tax wrongly realised as held by the appellate authority as that would amount to ordering the execution of the decisions of the appellate authority. It is this order of the High Court against which the appellant has appealed after obtaining special leave from this Court.

Court's reasoning:
6. On the first point, we are of opinion that though the High Courts have power to pass any appropriate order in the exercise of the powers conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution, such a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against the authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax. We have been referred to cases in which orders had been issued directing the State to refund taxes illegally collected, but all such cases had been those in which the petitions challenged the validity of the assessment and for consequential relief for the return of the tax illegally collected. We have not been referred to any case in which the Courts were moved by a petition under Art. 226 simply for the purpose of obtaining refund of money due from the State on account of its having made illegal exactions. We do not consider it proper to extend the principle justifying the consequential order directing the refund of amounts illegally realised, when the order under which the amounts had been collected has been set aside, to cases in which only orders for the refund of money are sought. The parties had the right to question the illegal assessment orders on the ground of their illegality or unconstitutionality and, therefore, could take action under Art. 226 for the protection of their fundamental right and the Courts, on setting aside the assessment orders exercised their jurisdiction in proper circumstances to order the consequential relief for the refund of the tax illegally realised. We do not find any good reason to extend this principle and, therefore, hold that no petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus will be normally entertained for the purpose of merely ordering a refund of money to the return of which the petitioner claims a right9. We, therefore, hold that normally petitions solely praying for the refund of money against the State by a writ of mandamus are not to be entertained. The aggrieved party has the right of going to the civil Court for claiming the amount and it is open to the State to raise all possible defences to the claim, defences which cannot, in most cases be appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction10. We now proceed to consider the Second point about the petitioners right to the issue of a writ of mandamus for the refund of the money realised as tax prior to the coming into force of the Constitution. We are of opinion that the appellant has not made out any case for the issue of a writ of mandamus for the said purpose14. The appellant has not been able to bring his claim for refund within any statute or statutory rule. Rule 8(a) of the rules provides for a refund of the excess tax realised before the completion of assessment if it is found that the tax payable was less in amount and if the assessee applied for the refund within a month from the date of completion of the final assessment. This rule does not provide that in case the appellate authority sets aside the final assessment, tax realised be refunded to the assessee on his application within any specified period of time. The High Court is, therefore, in saying that the appellant has no right under any statutory law, to the refund of the tax paid and that no duty is cast on the State to refund the amount it had realised which has been subsequently found to be not in accordance with law. The mere order of the appellate authority that the tax collected was not authorised by any law is not a decision to the effect that the State is to return the amounts to the assessee nor can it be taken to amount to a law making it incumbent on the State to refund the amount to the asscssee15. Reference is made to S. 72 of the Contract Act for the contention that the State is duty bound to return the amount to the appellant. Whether the case of the appellant falls under the provisions of that section would be a point for decision in a regular suit and not in the proceedings under Art. 226. In the circumstances of the case already narrated, there may be such defences, as urged by the State in its reply, open to it to urge against the appellant, one of the main defences being that the claim could be time-barred. It would be a moot point to consider whether the payment of tax made by the appellant can be said to be under a mistake within the meaning of that expression under S. 72 of the Contract Act16. We are, therefore, of opinion that the High Court rightly refused the writ of mandamus for the recovery of the sum of Rupees 62,809-5-2 alleged to have been realised by the respondent between 1944 and 1948. We need not, therefore, express any opinion on the question as to whether the right to claim refund arose when the amount was realised or when the final assessment of tax was held illegal by the appellate authority.