1963 (11) TMI 54 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the suits were not maintainable as (a) the civil court had no jurisdiction and (b) the assessee had not exhausted his other remedies? Whether the suits were barred by time? Whether the sales took place outside the Province of Madras and the levy of the tax in respect of some of the transactions was illegal? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Just as in the Canadian case it was not possible to separate the valuation of movable properties from that of immovable properties embraced in a gross valuation roll so also here it is not possible to separate from the composite turnover transactions which are validly taxed from those which are not for that must pertain to the domain of tax officers and the Courts have no power within that domain. In our opinion the High Court was right in declaring the total assessment to be affected by the portion which was illegal and void.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suits.
2. Whether the suits were barred by time under Section 18 of the Sales Tax Act.
3. Whether the assessments were capable of being split up or if the total assessments were void due to the inclusion of illegal levies.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The State of Andhra Pradesh contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suits, arguing that the finality of the orders under Section 11(4) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and the availability of other remedies under the Act barred the jurisdiction of the civil court. The judgment referenced the case Firm of Illuri Subbayya Chetty and Sons v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, which clarified that the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction is not readily inferred unless explicitly stated by the statute. The court held that without a provision like Section 18A, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not taken away, especially when the taxing authority's actions are wholly outside the law. The suits were deemed competent as the taxing of sales outside the State was beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities.

2. Time Bar under Section 18 of the Sales Tax Act:
The State argued that the suits were barred by time under Section 18 of the Sales Tax Act, which prescribes a six-month limitation period for suits against the State Government. However, the court found that Section 18 applies to suits for damages and compensation for bona fide acts under the Act, not to suits like Basappa's, which sought refunds of wrongfully levied taxes. The High Court had also held that Article 62 of the Limitation Act was applicable, not Section 18 or Article 16 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the suits were not barred by time.

3. Validity of Assessments and Severability:
The High Court had classified the sales into four categories and concluded that sales in categories 1 and 4, which took place outside the Province, could not be taxed by the authorities. The court relied on the precedent set in Ram Narain's case, which held that a composite assessment that includes illegal levies is invalid in toto. The court distinguished between cases where separate sums could be excised and cases where the assessment was a composite whole. It was determined that the turnover was mixed and separating validly taxed transactions from invalid ones would require reassessment, a task for tax authorities, not the civil court. Consequently, the entire assessment was declared void.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's decision that the civil court had jurisdiction, the suits were not barred by time, and the total assessments were void due to the inclusion of illegal levies.

← Previous Next →