9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 764 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxJurisdiction of the civil court - Refund of sales tax - the firm not applied for provisional registration - Whether in view of Sec.22 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit for refund of sales tax under the said Act ? Held that - Any dealer or person, as the case may be, may, in the prescribed manner appeal to the prescribed authority against such order. In the instant case, neither there is any order of assessment or order directing payment of interest or order imposing penalty. Thus, Sec.23 cannot be pressed into service. Under Section 9 C.P.C., the courts have subject to certain restrictions, jurisdiction to try suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred - In view of the same, both the courts perfectly justified that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit - the question is answered in affirmative. This Court observes that for a paltry amount, the plaintiff is running from pillar to post since 1983. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions. Appeal dismissed with cost of ₹ 25,000/-.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 22 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (OST Act). 2. Refund of sales tax collected from the plaintiffs. 3. Applicability of Sections 22 and 23 of the OST Act. 4. Adequacy of remedies provided under the OST Act. 5. Doctrine of wrongful enrichment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 22 of the OST Act: The core issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit for a refund of sales tax under the OST Act. The court examined Section 22, which bars certain proceedings, and Section 23, which provides for appeals and revisions. It was determined that Section 23 did not apply as there was no order of assessment, interest payment, or penalty imposition. Therefore, the civil court had jurisdiction, as confirmed by precedents, including the apex court's ruling in Dhulabhai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, which outlined conditions under which civil court jurisdiction is excluded. 2. Refund of Sales Tax Collected from the Plaintiffs: The plaintiffs, a registered partnership firm, sought a refund of ?9996/- collected as sales tax. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had hired trucks for marketing their products and produced waybills. Since the firm had already paid the assessed tax for the year ending 1982-83, it was entitled to a refund of the tax collected at the check gate. The court noted that the tax collected twice amounted to wrongful enrichment of the defendants. 3. Applicability of Sections 22 and 23 of the OST Act: The court analyzed Sections 22 and 23 of the OST Act. Section 22 bars questioning assessments or orders in any court, except as provided in Section 23, which allows appeals against specific orders. Since the case did not involve an order of assessment, interest payment, or penalty, Section 23 was deemed inapplicable. Thus, the civil court's jurisdiction was upheld. 4. Adequacy of Remedies Provided under the OST Act: The court discussed the adequacy of remedies under the OST Act, referencing the apex court's decision in Dhulabhai, which stated that civil court jurisdiction is excluded if adequate remedies exist within the statute. In this case, the OST Act did not provide a remedy for the plaintiffs' situation, thus allowing the civil court to entertain the suit. 5. Doctrine of Wrongful Enrichment: The trial court found that the defendants' collection of tax twice from the plaintiffs constituted wrongful enrichment. The appellate court concurred with this finding, reinforcing the plaintiffs' entitlement to a refund. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the civil court's jurisdiction and the plaintiffs' right to a refund. The court emphasized that the State should not rely on technicalities against just claims and criticized the prolonged litigation over a small amount. The defendants were ordered to pay costs of ?25,000/- to the plaintiffs.
|
