The petitioner was a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act having its oil mill at Kurnool. The petitioner was engaged in the business of purchasing groundnuts and manufacturing and selling groundnut oil and cake. For the assessment year, 1974-75, the petitioner was subjected to tax on the purchase turnover relating to groundnuts in a sum of Rs. 1, 80, 09, 445. On the said turnover, tax was levied at 4-1/4 per cent. The assessment order was made on September 29, 1977. Subsequently the order was rectified and 1/4 per cent of tax was deleted by an order dated December 1, 1977, on the ground that groundnuts being declared goods, no additional tax can be levied. The proceedings thus became final. The petitioner says that the business was closed down in July, 1978. Some years later, an attempt was made to recommence the business and in that connection, the petitioner says, he met the auditor and tax consultant in the third week of January, 1984 in order to check up the sales tax arrears position. He was then told that the calculation of tax in the year 1974-75 at the rate of 4 per cent was a mistake and that the rate of tax in force during the said year was only 3 per cent on groundnuts and not 4 per cent. The petitioner states that because of the said difference in the rate of tax, he has paid excess amount on Rs. 1, 80, 09, 445 by way of tax. Accordingly he applied to the Deputy Commissioner for refund of the excess amount and the Deputy Commissioner by his letter dated February 2, 1984, dismissed the said petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. It is then that the petitioner approached this Court.


The tax on groundnuts was 3 per cent during 1974-75. It was raised to 4 per cent during 1977. Since the assessment order was passed after the said amendment came into force, the authorities seem to have imposed the higher rate of tax instead of applying the appropriate rate of tax. In this sense, the petitioner has been subjected to tax more than what he is due. But the question is whether it can be rectified at this distance of time ? The Deputy Commissioner was right in rejecting the petitioner's application for revision inasmuch as such an application has to be filed within four years of the end of the relevant assessment year. In this case the application for revision was made seven years later. That apart, the question is whether this Court can direct authorities to revise the assessment or refund the excess tax paid in this writ petition ? For this purpose, the basis is whether the petitioner can recover the said amount by filing a suit. If he can, this Court would also grant the same relief in this writ petition. This is not a case where the petitioner has discovered the illegality in the demand and payment of the tax on account of a subsequent decision or amendment. Admittedly more than three years had elapsed by the time the petitioner asked for refund of the said amount, which means that the suit by him for recovery of the said amount would be barred. If so, it is not possible to give relief in the writ petition as prayed for.The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee is Rs. 150.


[The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave.]


B. Kanta Rao, Advocate, for the appellant.


T. V. S. N. Chari, Advocate, for the respondent.


ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT


The order of the Court was made by


SUBYASACHI MUKHARJI, C.J.I. - Special leave granted.


In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and especially in view of the fact that in this case there is no co

ntroversy or denial by the respondents as to the date when the appellant came to know of the excess payment, this appeal has to be allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court are set aside. It is declared that the appellant is entitled to the refund of the amount subject to setting off of arrears, if any, due from the appellant. The appeal is thus disposed. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.