On 19th December, 1966, Judgment was passed in Civil Rule No.
The present Writ Petition was filed in November, 1973 before the High Court of Assam.
Following the aforesaid decision of this Court, the appeals filed by the State of Assam and others against the judgment of the High Court were allowed by this Court on the 1st April, 1968.
Thereafter the taxes were paid in 1968.
The validity of the Act was also challenged and the High Court declared that Act to be ultra vires on 1st August, 1963.
It is the case of the appellant petitioner that in view of the above judgment, the appellant came to know about the mistake in paying the tax as per assessment order and also that the appellant became entitled to refund of the amount paid.
It was after this decision that the respondents required the appellant by a numberice under section 7 2 of the Act issued on 8.7.68 to submit returns for four periods mentioned hereinbefore.
Assessment orders were passed under section 9 3 of the said Act.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeals.
The Division Bench on June 14, 1979, passed judgment setting aside the orders and numberices of demand but refused relief of refund claimed by the appellant.
On 10th July, 1973, the High Court passed judgment in Loong Soong Tea Estate, Civil Rule No.
In the judgment under appeal after elaborate discussion, the High Court came to the companyclusion that when a petitioner approaches the High Court with the sole claim for refund of money by writ of mandamus, the same is numbermally number granted but where the refund is prayed as a companysequential relief the same is numbermally entertained if there is numberobstruction or if there be numbertriable issue like that of limitation which companyld number be companyveniently tried in writ petition.
The Act was declared ultra vires the Constitution by this Court in Atiabari case supra on the ground that previous sanction of the President was number taken.
The appellant petitioner claimed in all these petitions that the assessments were illegal and prayed that directions be given to the respondents to refund the tax companylected in pursuance of those orders.
In the meantime, M s Khyerabari Tea Co. Ltd. challenged the provisions of the Act directly before this Court by filing an application under Article 32 of the Constitution and this Court in its judgment dated 13.12.63 held the Act to be intra vires.
From the Judgment and order dated 14.6.
Thereafter the Legislature passed the Act which received the assent of the President on 6.4.61.
190/ 1965.
In this case indisputably it appears that tax was companylected without the authority of law.
The Legislature of Assam passed the Act, as mentioned hereinbefore in 1954 called the Assam Taxation on Goods carried by Road and Inland Waterways Act, 1954 which purported to levy tax on manufactured tea and jute carried by road and inland waterways.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
M.K.S. Mench and Sanjay Bharthri for the Appellants.
Due to penal companysequences mentioned in the said numberices in the event of failure to file return and pay the taxes, the appellant filed return on July 11, 1968 and paid the various taxes.
3023 3029 OF 1979.
509 to 512 of 1973.
On 13.12.63 Khyerbar Tea Co. Ltd. another v. State of Assam, 1964 5 SCR ts 975 in a challenge to the Act under Article 32 of the Constitution, this Court held the Act to be intra vires.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These appeals arise out of the Judgment and order dated 14th June, 1979 of the High Court of Gauhati in Assam setting aside the order and numberice of demand under the Assam Taxation on Goods carried by Road or Inland Waterways Act, hereinafter called the Act, but declining to order any refund of the taxes paid.
1979 of the High Court of Gauhati in Civil Rule Nos.
1005 of 1969 declaring the assessment as without jurisdiction.
Thereafter in June, 1976, the learned Single Judge of the High Court referred the matter to a larger Bench.
In 1954 Assam Taxation on Goods carried by Road or Inland Waterways Act was first enacted.
Against the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the State of Assam and other respondents preferred appeals before this Court.
F. Nariman, P.H Parekh.
Indeed the appellant had to pay the tax in view of the numberices which were without jurisdiction.
Prabir Chaudhary for the Respondents.
On Ist April 1968, the appeals preferred by the State of Assam against the High Court order dated 13.12.63 were allowed on the basis of the declaration of the Act to be intra vires the Constitution.
It appears that the assessment was made under section 9 3 of the Act.
Thereafter numberices were issued by Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong, requiring the appellant under section 7 2 of the Act to submit returns for the period ending 30.6.61, 30.9.61, 31.12.61 and 31.3.62.
Returns were duly filed.
