1959 (11) TMI 52 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of sales tax paid by the plaintiff.
2. Applicability of Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution.
3. Limitation period for filing suits.
4. Jurisdiction of the court under section 18-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The suits were filed for the refund of sales tax paid by the plaintiff. The State contended that the sales tax was not refundable as Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution did not apply. The plaintiffs proved that the goods were exported for consumption, complying with the Explanation to Article 286(1)(a). The evidence established that the cocoanuts were intended for consumption outside the State, as stated in the plaints and not denied by the State. The Court found no merit in the State's contention, affirming compliance with Article 286(1)(a).

2. The State argued that the suits were barred by limitation as they were not filed within three years from the date of each monthly assessment. The Court clarified that the limitation starts from the final assessment date, not from monthly returns. The final assessment was made on a specific date, and the suits were filed within three years from that date. Therefore, the Court held that the suits were filed in time and not barred by limitation.

3. The State contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suits under section 18-A of the Act. However, the Court determined that section 18-A did not apply because the suits were not to set aside or modify the assessment. The plaintiffs were challenging the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer based on Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court referenced a precedent to establish that such suits are cognizable by civil courts. Consequently, the Court dismissed the State's contention and affirmed the maintainability of the suits.

In conclusion, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the appeals, upholding the lower court's decision to decree the suits for the refund of sales tax paid by the plaintiffs. The Court found that the plaintiffs complied with Article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution, filed the suits within the limitation period from the final assessment date, and that the suits were maintainable in civil courts based on jurisdictional grounds.