Judgment 1. . Heard Mr. Sandip Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sahay, counsel for the Revenue and Mr. Vikas Jain as Amicus Curiae. 2. This writ petition arises from the petitioners claim for refund of taxes paid for the asessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97 on certain amounts received by him that were not subject to income tax. 3. The petitioner is a retired I.P.S. officer. He is also a recipient of the freedom fighters pension under the Swatantra Sainani Samman Scheme sponsored by the Central Government. In computing his income for payment of income tax for the assessment years in question he also added the amounts received as freedom fighters pension. He consequently paid income tax on the pension, duly showing the pension amount as part of his income in the returns submitted to the revenue authorities. He later came to learn that by virtue of a notification issued by the Central Govt. the freedom fighters pension was excluded from the definition of income under Section 10(17A) of the income Tax Act. He then made representations before the revenue authorities for refund of the amount of taxes paid on the pension for the eleven assessment years. A number of representations are enclosed as annexures to the writ petition and from those representations it appears that the claim for refund was made in a rather haphazard way. The first in the series is the representation, dated 14.7.1998 relating to assessment year, 1996-1997. The second representation relating to assessment years 1992 to 1995-96 was received in the income tax office on 8.12.2000 (Annexure-2/A). The third representation was submitted on 19.3.2001 and it reiterated the petitioners claim for assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97. Two separate representations were filed on 16.4.2003, one in respect of assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96 (Annexure-2/C) and the other in respect of assessment years 1986-87 to 1990-91. The last two representations were submitted on 1.2.2005 (Annexure-6) and on 8.4.2005 (Annexure-7) both relating to assessment years, 1986-87 to 1994-95. No action was taken on the representation filed by the petitioner. He then approached the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and on his direction the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Patna asked him to submit certain documents, including copies of returns for the assessment years in question, copies of challans and other documents showing deposit of taxes and some other related papers. He then approached the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and on his direction the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Patna asked him to submit certain documents, including copies of returns for the assessment years in question, copies of challans and other documents showing deposit of taxes and some other related papers. According to the petitioner, he submitted all the documerits asked for by the I.T.O. who finally submitted some report to his superiors, following an interview with him. But no further action was taken in the matter and the petitioner was thus compelled to move the court. 4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Revenue does not deny or dispute any of the facts stated by the petitioner. The only plea taken is that the petitioners claim for refund could not be entertained in view of the bar of Section 154(7) as the claims for refund were made after expiry of four years from the assessment periods. There is, however, not a word why no order was passed on the claim for refund (Annexure-2) for the assessment year, 1996-97 which was undeniably received in the income tax office on 14.7.1998. 5. We find it highly regrettable that Revenue has chosen to take an adversarial stance in this matter. As a matter of fact it appears to us that the resistance to the writ petition offered by the Revenue is without much application of mind and the opposition to the petitioners claim is only for the sake of opposition. We are clear in our mind that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Revenues plea based on limitation under Section 154(7) of the Income Tax Act is quite misconceived and cannot be accepted for a moment. 6. Here it may be mentioned that in support of the plea taken by the Revenue Mr. Sahay relied upon a bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in U. Foam Private Limited vs. Collector of Central Excise, 175 I.T.R. 326. In that case central excice duty was erroneously paid on articles made of polyurethane foam that was exempted from payment of duty under a notification issued by the Central Government. When the question of refund arose, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the period of limitation for claiming refund in such cases would be three years. Mr. In that case central excice duty was erroneously paid on articles made of polyurethane foam that was exempted from payment of duty under a notification issued by the Central Government. When the question of refund arose, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the period of limitation for claiming refund in such cases would be three years. Mr. Sahay relying heavily on that decision submitted that in the present case too where tax was paid on moneys exempted by a notification issued by the Central Government, no claim for refund could be entertained after the period of limitation. 7. Mr. Vikas Jain submitted that the Andhra High Court decision was different from the case in hand on two basic issues; first, the Andhra case was under the Central Excise Act in which the law is well settled that as long as an article finds place in the tariff the charge of excise duty is not extinguished and the socalled "exemption" notification issued by the Central Govt. under that Act simply reduces the rate of levy and in some cases brings it down to nil levy. By virtue of a notification the excise duty on an article may come down to zero, nevertheless the charge of excise is not obliterated and, hence, under the law any collections of quty may not be termed as without the sanction of law. Secondly, in the U.Foam case duty was paid under a mistake of law and in such cases the courts had taken the consistent view that the claim of refund must be made during the period of limitation prescribed under the relevant statute or under Section 72 of the Contract Act. 8. In the case in hand the position is otherwise. Section 2(43) of the Income Tax Act defines tax to mean income tax chargeable under the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (45) of Section 2 defines total income to mean the total amount of income referred to in Section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Section 10 starts with the following words: " In computing the total income of a previous year of any person any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included." 9. Section 10 starts with the following words: " In computing the total income of a previous year of any person any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included." 9. It is, thus, evident that by virtue of the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 10(17A) of the Act the amount of freedom fighters pension was taken out of the definition of income and total income and it was, therefore, not subject to any tax under the provisions of the Act. Any levy or collection of tax or money without the sanction of law is prohibited by Art. 265 of the Constitution. The taxes received from the petitioner on freedom fighters pension were plainly without the authority of law. The Revenue, therefore, has no claim over it and does not have the right to retain it. Seen thus no question of limitation arises in this case. 10. Even though the Revenue did not take any action for refund when the petitioner moved it by filing representations, we should have greatly appreciated had it taken a more assessee-friendly attitude in the matter and refunded the amount of taxes to the petitioner instead of resisting the case and putting itself on the receiving end in the courts order. 10. In the light of the discussions made above we direct the concerned authorities in the Income Tax Department to refund the amount of taxes paid by the petitioner for the assessment years in question in so far as they relate to the amounts of freedom fighters pension received by him in those years. 11. In order to facilitate an early disposal of the matter the petitioner may see the Commissioner of Income Tax-Il, Patna and once again submit before him all the documents called for in Annexure-5. It is expected that the refund shall be made to the petitioner alongwith the statutory interests within six weeks from the date of submission of the documents before the Commissioner of Income Tax-ll, Patna. 12. In the result this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs. 13. Before parting with the records we would like to record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. Vikas Jain as Amicus Curiae.