This raises an important constitutional question: if money was paid to the State under a mistake of law, can the government retain it simply because the refund claim does not strictly fall within statutory provisions like Section 54 of the CGST Act? When Tax Is Not Tax: Constitutional Refund Principles under GST The Update Courts have clarified that amounts collected without authority of law cannot be retained by the government even if the refund claim does not strictly fall within Section 54 of the CGST Act.
Tax laws are built on structured rules such as rates, valuation methods and compliance procedures. However, situations sometimes arise where taxpayers deposit money with the government based on an incorrect understanding of the law. This raises an important constitutional question: if money was paid to the State under a mistake of law, can the government retain it simply because the refund claim does not strictly fall within statutory provisions like Section 54 of the CGST Act?
Key Takeaways
- This raises an important constitutional question: if money was paid to the State under a mistake of law, can the government retain it simply because the refund claim does not strictly fall within statutory provisions like Section 54 of the CGST Act?
- When Tax Is Not Tax: Constitutional Refund Principles under GST The Update Courts have clarified that amounts collected without authority of law cannot be retained by the government even if the refund claim does not strictly fall within Section 54 of the CGST Act.
- Understanding the Concept of Mistake of Law A mistake of law occurs when a taxpayer pays money to the government under the belief that a legal liability exists when in reality it does not.
- Situation Nature of Refund Excess tax paid under a valid levy Governed by Section 54 Amount collected without authority of law Governed by constitutional principles Section 54 assumes that the tax was legally payable under the GST law.
- It held that payment made under mistake cannot be treated as tax lawfully collected under the GST law.
When Tax Is Not Tax: Constitutional Refund Principles under GST
The Update
Courts have clarified that amounts collected without authority of law cannot be retained by the government even if the refund claim does not strictly fall within Section 54 of the CGST Act.
The Impact
Taxpayers may seek refunds under constitutional principles where tax was paid under a mistake of law or under an invalid levy.
The Action
Businesses should examine whether payments made under GST were legally due, especially in cases involving invalid notifications, incorrect interpretation or double payment.
Understanding the Concept of Mistake of Law
A mistake of law occurs when a taxpayer pays money to the government under the belief that a legal liability exists when in reality it does not.
Such mistakes can arise due to several reasons:
• Misinterpretation of statutory provisions
• Departmental pressure or administrative instructions
• Judicial uncertainty that is clarified later
• Double payment of tax on the same transaction
• Levy imposed through notifications later declared invalid
In such situations, the payment made does not become legitimate tax merely because it was deposited through statutory procedures.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that amounts collected without legal authority must be returned.
In Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes, the Court held that tax collected without authority of law must be refunded. Similarly, in Union of India v. ITC Ltd., the Court observed that refund cannot be denied even if payment was made without protest once the legal position becomes clear.
Constitutional Basis of Refund under Article 265
The principle behind mistake of law refunds is rooted in Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
Article 265 states that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. This requirement applies not only to the imposition of tax but also to its collection and retention.
If the government collects money without proper legal authority, retaining such money would violate the Constitution.
The Supreme Court in Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. Union of India clarified that ignorance of illegality at the time of payment does not validate the collection. Once it is shown that the levy lacked authority of law, the taxpayer becomes entitled to refund.
This principle forms the foundation of constitutional restitution.
Section 54 of the CGST Act and Refund Limitations
Refunds under GST are generally governed by Section 54 of the CGST Act. This provision prescribes procedures and timelines, including a two-year limitation period for filing refund claims.
However, courts have drawn an important distinction between two types of refund situations.
Situation Nature of Refund
Excess tax paid under a valid levy Governed by Section 54
Amount collected without authority of law Governed by constitutional principles
Section 54 assumes that the tax was legally payable under the GST law. When the levy itself is unconstitutional or inapplicable, the amount paid never acquires the character of tax.
Therefore, the limitation under Section 54 cannot override constitutional protections.
This issue gained prominence in the ocean freight litigation after the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., where the levy of IGST on ocean freight was declared unconstitutional. Several High Courts directed refunds even where Section 54 limitations were raised by the tax department.
Judicial Developments in Refund Jurisprudence
Indian courts have consistently emphasized that refund claims must be examined based on the nature of the payment.
If a payment was made under an invalid levy, it cannot be treated as legitimate tax revenue merely because procedural refund provisions were not followed.
Courts have also recognized that procedural rules should not override constitutional guarantees.
The Significance of the BLA Infrastructure Case
An important recent development in refund jurisprudence came from the Supreme Court decision in State of Jharkhand v. BLA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Although the dispute involved refund of statutory pre-deposit in an appellate proceeding, the Court made an important observation. It clarified that refund must be governed by the nature of the payment rather than mechanically applying Section 54 of the CGST Act.
The Court held that statutory pre-deposits are governed by appellate provisions and cannot automatically be routed through Section 54.
This reasoning has broader implications. It reinforces the principle that refund provisions must be interpreted in light of the character of the payment rather than applied mechanically.
High Court Ruling on Mistaken Payment under GST
The Orissa High Court recently addressed the issue of mistaken payment under GST in Rajendra Narayan Mohanty v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax.
In that case, the taxpayer had mistakenly paid tax twice on the same transaction. The tax department rejected the refund claim on the ground that it was filed beyond the two-year limitation under Section 54.
The High Court rejected this reasoning.
It held that payment made under mistake cannot be treated as tax lawfully collected under the GST law. Once it is established that the collection lacked legal authority, retention of such money becomes unconstitutional under Article 265.
The Court relied on earlier decisions such as:
Case Key Principle
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation v. Additional Commissioner CGST Refund cannot be denied when GST was not leviable
Comsol Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat Amount collected without authority of law is not tax
Union of India v. ITC Ltd. Refund cannot be denied on technical grounds once mistake is established
These judgments collectively reaffirm that constitutional restitution overrides statutory limitations.
Limitation and Discovery of Mistake
Another important aspect in mistake of law cases is the starting point of limitation.
Courts have often held that limitation begins from the date when the mistake is discovered rather than the date of payment.
This approach is supported by Section 17 of the Limitation Act, which postpones limitation in cases involving fraud or mistake until the error is discovered.
In several cases, courts have applied this principle where a levy was declared invalid years after taxpayers had already made payments.
Conclusion
The doctrine of mistake of law plays a crucial role in ensuring fairness in tax administration. It recognizes that taxpayers may sometimes make payments based on an incorrect understanding of legal liability.
Indian constitutional jurisprudence makes it clear that the State cannot retain money that it was never legally entitled to collect. Article 265 prohibits both unlawful taxation and unlawful retention of tax.
Recent decisions such as BLA Infrastructure and Rajendra Narayan Mohanty reaffirm that refund disputes under GST must be examined based on the true nature of the payment rather than rigid procedural rules.
Ultimately, when a levy lacks legal authority, restitution is not merely a statutory remedy but a constitutional obligation.
ABOUT VAKILKARO
Vakilkaro is a trusted legal and compliance advisory platform that helps businesses and professionals stay ahead of evolving regulatory requirements in India. With a strong focus on corporate law like private limited company registration, limited liability company registration, etc. MCA compliance, and director obligations, Vakilkaro simplifies complex legal updates into clear, actionable guidance.
Stay tuned for more such updates.
Official External Resources
Use these primary/official sources to verify rules, forms, fees, timelines and regulatory updates before publication.
Frequently asked questions
When Tax Is Not Tax: Mistake of Law and Refund under GST+
This raises an important constitutional question: if money was paid to the State under a mistake of law, can the government retain it simply because the refund claim does not strictly fall within statutory provisions like Section 54 of the CGST Act? When Tax Is Not Tax: Constitutional Refund Principles under GST The Update Courts have clarified that amounts collected without authority of law cannot be retained by the government even if the refund claim does not strictly fall within Section 54 of the CGST Act.