9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Officer, Rajnandgaon, imposed tax of Rs. 8,275 for the period 6th December, 1962, to 27th July, 1965, and by order dated 19th December, 1966, he imposed tax of Rs. 4,950 for the period 28th May, 1965, to 31st March, 1966. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,500 under section 18 of the Act for non-registration by his order dated 17th January, 1967. The plaintiff preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Raipur, which was dismissed on 28th June, 1969. In pursuance of the assessment orders, the sales tax authorities issued a certificate for recovery of the amount of Rs. 15,725. 3.. The plaintiff filed the present suit for a permanent injunction restraining the State from realising the amount of sales tax and penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absent in spite of service of notice and, as such, ex parte order was passed against him on 10th March, 1967. Against that order, revision was preferred by the plaintiff, which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 28th June, 1969. The plaintiff with his counsel appeared in the assessment case for the period 28th July, 1965, to 31st March, 1966, but his contentions were rejected. It is true that the sale of forest produce by the forest department was exempted from 1st April, 1959, to 2nd November, 1962, but the exemption was not in respect of other dealers. The plaintiff was assessed to sales tax by best judgment assessment by the sales tax authority on the basis of evidence produced before it. The plaintiff was not assessed for any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and this Court cannot sit upon judgment against the orders of the Sales Tax Officer as an appellate court. Accordingly, the suit has been dismissed with costs. 6.. The only question to be considered is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred under section 37 of the Act. 7.. Section 37 of the Act is as under: "Save as provided in section 44, no assessment order or the determination of liability to pay any tax or penalty or the recovery of any tax or penalty made under this Act or the Rules made thereunder by the Commissioner or any person appointed under section 3 to assist him shall be called into question in any civil court and save as provided in sections 38 and 39, no appeal or application for revision shall lie against any such as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 S.T.C. 680 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 322. has held that a suit by an assessee for recovery of a sum of money against the State on the ground that the said amount had been illegally recovered from him as sales tax under the Act is incompetent in view of the bar enacted in section 18-A of that Act. In dealing with a similar provision under section 20 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, the Supreme Court in Kamala Mills Ltd. v. Bombay State[1965] 16 S.T.C. 613 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1942. has held that the clause "an assessment made" does not mean an assessment properly or correctly made. The said clause takes in all assessments made or purported to have been made under the Act. An order of assessment, even if erroneous, and based on an inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sary implication the jurisdiction of a civil court in that regard. But an authority created by a statute cannot question the vires of that statute or any of the provisions thereof whereunder it functions. It must act under the Act and not outside it. If it acts on the basis of a provision of the statute, which is ultra vires, to that extent it would be acting outside the Act. In that event, a suit to question the validity of such an order made outside the Act would certainly lie in a civil court." Considering an identical provision in section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P.[1968] 22 S.T.C. 416 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 78., the Supreme Court held that when the statute gives finality to the orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the other hand, from the pleadings of the defendant, it is clear that the plaintiff was given notice of these proceedings but in some cases he remained absent and he was proceeded ex parte, while in other cases he appeared through his counsel and after considering the objections raised, the assessment orders were passed. The plaintiff has failed to show that the Sales Tax Officer ignored the provisions of the Act or the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. It cannot, therefore, be said that the adjudications were beyond the competence of the sales tax authorities, nor they violated the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, nor this is a case of assuming jurisdiction by wrongly deciding jurisdictional questions of law or f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
