1961 (8) TMI 17 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit.
2. Applicability of Section 18-A of the General Sales Tax Act.
3. Retrospective effect of Section 18-A.
4. Determination of the initiation date of proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit:
The core issue revolves around whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, which assessed the appellant to sales tax. The State argued that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction based on Section 18-A of the General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The Munsiff and the District Judge of Kozhikode both concluded that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted if the initiation of proceedings occurred after the enactment of Section 18-A.

2. Applicability of Section 18-A of the General Sales Tax Act:
Section 18-A explicitly bars Civil Courts from entertaining suits aimed at setting aside or modifying assessments made under the Act. The court referenced several precedents, including Ramachandra v. Secretary of State, Iswarananda Bharathiswami v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Board, and Secretary of State for India v. Mask & Co., to establish that where a statute provides a specific remedy, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is ousted. The principle is that the party must adopt the remedy given by the statute, and ordinary jurisdiction is excluded when the legislature creates obligations and provides an exclusive code for determination.

3. Retrospective effect of Section 18-A:
The court examined whether Section 18-A, introduced by the amendment in 1951, has retrospective effect. It is an established principle that unless a statute explicitly states or necessarily implies retrospective effect, it will not be applied retrospectively. The assessment in question related to the year ending March 31, 1951, and the amendment introducing Section 18-A was passed subsequent to this period. Therefore, the court needed to determine whether the initiation of proceedings occurred before or after the enactment of Section 18-A to decide on the applicability of the bar on Civil Court jurisdiction.

4. Determination of the initiation date of proceedings:
The right of suit is considered to accrue from the date on which the initiation of proceedings took place. The appellant claimed that the initiation occurred on April 26, 1950, while the State contended the earliest initiation was in July 1951. Since there was no evidence to ascertain the exact date, the District Judge remanded the case to the trial court for a finding on this question. The principle from Messrs Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh was cited, asserting that a vested right of appeal cannot be taken away except by express enactment or necessary implication.

Conclusion:
The court upheld that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit if the initiation of proceedings was after the enactment of Section 18-A. The appeal was dismissed, and the case was remanded to the trial court to determine the exact initiation date of the proceedings and dispose of the case accordingly. The Munsiff was directed to expedite the case due to its age. The court emphasized that all questions relating to the validity of an assessment should be agitated before the hierarchy of tribunals constituted by the Act and not in Civil Courts.

← Previous Next →