9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (9) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und. 2. No other contention was urged before us. And no other contention, therefore, arises for consideration. 3.. The suits were for the recovery of amounts collected by way of sales tax. That the collections were unauthorised is not disputed by the State. The only contention, as already stated, is that a resort to the civil courts is unavailable. 4.. At the relevant time there was no provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause of action arose. I agree respectfully with the learned Judge in the above view. Section 23-A of the Travancore-Cochin Act came into force only on 1st October, 1955, and the levy and collection of the impugned taxes were long before that date. In fact all these suits have been instituted before that section was enacted. It then follows that the suits are maintainable. That such a suit lies has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial assistance except in so far as general principles of construction are laid down. We are unable to find anything in the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, prior to the amendment effected by Act XVIII of 1955 which excludes the jurisdiction of the civil courts either in express terms or by necessary implication. 7.. It follows that the appeals should fail and be dismissed with costs. We do so. App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
