Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement v. State of M.P. [(2015) 11 SCC 708], wherein, it was held that Article 265 imposes a limitation on the taxing power of the State insofar as it shall not levy or collect tax by a mere executive fiat and rather, it has to be done only by an authority of law. The act of retaining the refund amount would tantamount to imposition of tax without any authority of law. 16. A plain reading of Article 265 in juxtaposition with Article 300A of the Constitution of India, reflect that the said provisions prohibit the State from withholding any money and in fact, the State is ostensibly saddled with the duty to refund any amount collected as tax, which it is legally bound to return to the assessee. The said position attains greater significance when the rights of a person are evidently determined and the position of the State enjoying the money without any sanction of law becomes clear and unassailable. 17. So far as the decision relied upon by the respondents in the case of Harbux Singh Sidhu is concerned, the same stands on an altogether different factual footing and is distinguishable with the facts of the present case. The facts of Harbux Singh Sidhu would indicate that the same relates to the alleged refund of advance tax deposit. 18. However, as noted above, in the instant case, the refund sought for is in pursuance of the respondents’ own decision dated 30 May 2002 i.e., the appeal effect order. The petitioner immediately had made an application dated 11 September 2002, requesting for the refund of the determined amount in light of the appeal effect order. However, the respondents failed to deal with the said request. Therefore, the facts of the case cited by the respondents are clearly distinguishable.
