9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (1) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not accepted by the learned District Judge. The first and practi- cally the only material issue is whether these sums, namely Rs. 3,142-4-0 in Krishnadass' suit and Rs. 6,536-0-0 in Raghunath Dass' suit, which were admittedly paid by them and received by Government, were really due to Government on account of sales tax imposed by law, and they were payments under duress, and in any case non-gratuitous payments by the assessees of taxes declared by this Court to be illegal. Secondly, if the sums were not legally leviable by Government, the plaintiffs-respondents have committed such defects in procedure that they cannot get back their money. A number of such procedural defects have been pointed out in the memorandum of appeal filed by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment that no sales tax should be levied on export sales. This Court held that the sales tax was leviable on sales within the State but not on export sales even for the one year in the Presi- dent's Order (C.O. No. VII), because in this State no sales tax was actually being levied when the Constitution came into force. This order was passed on 11th December, 1950, and a certificate was given to enable the State of Vindhya Pradesh, if it thought fit, to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the State of Vindhya Pradesh accepted the decision. The result was that any collection of sales tax levied on export sales was illegal and the assessees were entitled to a refund. In case the goods were subject to sales tax on internal sale it would n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did he allege, which would have been wrong, that the purchaser alone should get the money back. The learned Advocate-General has argued that the written statements should not have been accepted because there is an order in the Vindhya Pradesh that D.Cs. "may" sign the pleading and written statements. I do not agree. That order only enables the D.Cs. to sign the pleadings, but it does not anywhere provide that the Courts should reject pleadings not signed by that authority. The Government Pleader was legally competent to file written statements. I was also prepared to hear the learned Advocate-General on such grounds as he thought the Government Pleader had omitted, subject to costs to the other side. Actually there is no such ground. Point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a taxation, then a claim to a refund should be within the special period of limitation prescribed there. But if the collection or levy is one, which is altogether outside that law, it cannot be held to be one made under it and a claim to a refund of that collection is governed not by that special law, but the general one. The position in regard to limitation is exactly the same as in regard to jurisdiction and will be more fully discussed under it. The suit is not time- barred. Another way of looking at it is also this. The limitation is no doubt 3 months from the payment, but if the taxing authority holds it to be legal, the claim to refund comes into existence only when a com- petent authority declares it to be illegal. The period betw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch has since taken its place, provide that "no assessment or order made under this Act or Rule made thereunder shall be questioned in any civil Court." There is a provision for appeal, revision and review before the Commissioner of Sales Tax and also for the statement of case to the High Court. Here again, the test is whether the order or the assess- ment is such as could be really made under the special law. There is general jurisdiction of the civil Court but for certain acts done under certain special statutes the jurisdiction of the civil Court is restricted and vested in special authorities under those statutes. But if the assessment or act concerned is one which cannot be done under the special statute then the general jurisdiction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down. "When a Municipality is seeking to recover sums which the Government of India Act has prohibited it from taking in the shape of taxes it is acting wholly without jurisdiction, and the suits claiming refund lie in the civil Court and are not barred by the special provisions in C.P. Municipalities Act." Similarly, in the District Council's case it was held that "the protection given in the special law cannot be claimed if the taxing authority travels beyond its limited provisions in imposing a tax." A similar view has been expressed in Abdul Majid v. P.R. Nayak(3), in connection with a High Court's powers. Here it was a case of administration of evacuee property. It has been held that it is only in regard to the orders passed under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
