The appeal is against the appellate judgment and order dated 12 3 1976 reported in 1977 Tax LR1998 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court rejecting the appeal of the appellant against an order of a single Judge of that High Court allowing the writ petition of the respondent who was held entitled to refund of terminal tax paid to the appellant, Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur under mistake of law.
A direction was issued to the Nagar Mahapalika to refund the excess amount to the respondent on application but subject to the objections as regards limitation etc.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had occasion to test this measure in J. K. Jute Mills v. Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, Civil Misc.
It appears that in the Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur terminal tax was in force for many years when in January, 1960 it tended to increase the rate of tax in some companymodities as well as introduce new items in the taxed list.
However, the portion regarding objection to the limitation was removed by a subsequent review order.
This appeal by special leave and the tagged special leave petition are being disposed of by a companymon order.
Even a subdued statement was made then by the companynsel for the Nagar Mahapalika that tax thenceforth was number being realised at rates more than the rates which prevailed before the Notification of 1960.
Within three years from this date, the present respondent moved the High Court in a writ petition seeking similar relief.
The original and the subsequent order was then subjected to two cross Letters Patent Appeals.
The Court then directed the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur to refund to the writ petitioner the amount companylected in excess by way of terminal tax on the strength of the January 1960 Notification vide order dated 15 12 1967.
1200/60 and found it untenable on the strength of the decision of this Court in Amraoti Municipality v. Ram Chandra, .
The companynsel for the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika companyceded the claim of the then writ petitioner in view of the pronouncement of this Court.
A learned single Judge of that Court relying on J. K. Jute Mills case supra found the respondent entitled to the same relief.
Writ No.
