1987 (4) TMI 452 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court
2. Rebate as Part of Assessment Process
3. Availability of Statutory Remedies
4. Bar on Civil Court's Jurisdiction
5. Limitation

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court:
The primary issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff for a rebate claim under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The court noted that section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code confers jurisdiction on civil courts to try all suits of civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred. It was concluded that while the Central Sales Tax Act did not expressly bar the jurisdiction of civil courts, the scheme of the Act impliedly barred such jurisdiction because the Act provided specific remedies through special tribunals.

2. Rebate as Part of Assessment Process:
The court examined whether the rebate claim was part of the assessment process. It referred to the Supreme Court decision in Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay, which held that matters like rebate are part of the assessment process. The rebate is to be allowed based on the return submitted by the dealer, and if not allowed, it can be challenged through appeals and references provided under the statute. Since the plaintiff did not pursue these statutory remedies, the court held that the rebate issue was indeed part of the assessment process.

3. Availability of Statutory Remedies:
The court highlighted that the Central Sales Tax Act and the Orissa Sales Tax Act provided adequate statutory remedies for claiming rebates and refunds. The plaintiff had the option to challenge the assessment through appeals and revisions but failed to do so. Additionally, the plaintiff could have applied for a refund under section 14 of the State Act, but this application was made much beyond the permissible time and was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The court emphasized that the plaintiff should have pursued the remedies available under the statute.

4. Bar on Civil Court's Jurisdiction:
The court discussed whether section 22 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, which bars certain proceedings in civil courts, applied to the Central Sales Tax assessments. It concluded that section 22 did not ipso facto apply to Central Sales Tax assessments, as section 9(3) of the Central Act did not incorporate section 22. However, the court noted that the jurisdiction of civil courts was impliedly barred because the Central Sales Tax Act and the Orissa Sales Tax Act provided comprehensive remedies within the statute itself.

5. Limitation:
Although the court did not find it necessary to decide on the issue of limitation due to its conclusion on the maintainability of the suit, it was raised by the appellants that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate judge had previously held against the appellants on this point, but the High Court did not delve into this issue further.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate judge were set aside. The suit was dismissed as not maintainable. The court found that the civil court's jurisdiction was impliedly barred due to the availability of specific statutory remedies under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Orissa Sales Tax Act. There was no order as to costs.