LexBATA SHOE CO. versus CITY OF JABALPUR CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
•
F
G
H
182
BATA SHOE CO.
v.
CITY OF JABALPUR CORPORATION
March 11, 1977
[Y'. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J
Central Pl'ovinces & Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 s. 84(3 )-Scope of-
Act sefj.contained Code-"".Obiections regarding assessment, levy etc.
of
octroi duty shall not be taken in any manner or by any other authority than is
provided in the Act"-Suit in a Civil Court-If lies.
The (~entrai Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, empowers
a
municipality to assess and recover octroi duty on goods brought within the
municipal I imits for sale. consumption and use therein.
Under the Act an
appeal against assessment or levy or refusal to refund any tax lies to a desig·
nated official.
A person aggrieved by the decisic1n. of the appellate authority
has a right to apply to the State Government for revision.
The. Act also
provides for reference to the High Court on questions like liability to assess-
ment or principles of assessment and so on.
Section 84(3) lays down that
"no objection shall be taken to any valuation. assessment or levy nor shall
the liability of any person to be taxed or assessed be questioned in any other
n1anner or by any other authority than is provided in the. Act." Rule 14(b)
of the Rules framed under the Act provides that any person importing or
bringing any dutiable articles within the octroi limits of a municipality without
paying ti.e duty or without giving a declaration to the octroi Moharrir, shall
be liable to pay double the duty and shall in: addition be liable to be prosecuted
for evasion uf duty.
The plaintiffs imported within the· municipal limits for sale in their retail
shops articles manufactured by' them in their faCtories situated at different
places in the country.
They paid the octroi levied by the municipality
at
a certain tate.
But sometime later the municipality reopened and revised
the assessment and charged octroi at a different rate. It also levied double
the duty by way of penalty on the ground that the plaintiffs had intentionally
evaded pay1n~nt of duty on the goods.
The appellate authority modified the
decision of the· municipality but upheld the
assessment of double duty. The
plaintiffs' revj5ion application was rejected by the Board of Revenue.
The plaintiffs pai({ the duty and penalty under protest and filed a suit for
rtecovery of the amount on the ground that the municipality was not entitled
to recover the amount of octroi duty and penalty.
Overruling the defendant
municipality's objection as regards the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the
suit the trial court decreed the suit.
On appeal. the High Court held that
the dcfend<ints were entitled to revise and reopen the assessment and that the
reassessment of duty fixed in appeal by the appellate authority could not be
questioned by the plaintiffs in a civil court.
In appeal it was contended in this Court by the plaintiffs that s. 84(3)
mav bar a suit to challenge an act which was within the purview of the Act,
but it could not bar a suit to challenge an act which was outside the Act or
the Rules and since in this case the defendant had no power to revise
or
reopen the assessment, its action was wholly lacking in jurisdiction and so the
suit was competent.
Dismissing the, appeal,
HELD: Since s. 84(3)
expressly p<ohibits a
challenge to
valuation,
as~essn1ent or le\'Y "in any other mb.nner~ ....... .... than is provided
1n
this Act" and since the Act has devised its own special machinery for inquiring
- into and adjudicating upon such challenges, the common remedy of a suit stands
necessarily excluded and cannot be availed of by a person aggrieved by an order
•
•
.
,.
BATA SHOE co. v. JABALPUR CORP. (Clwndrachud, !.)
18 3
·of assessment to octroi duty.
Similarly the sub-section excludes expressly the
A
poo.1cr of "any other authority than is provided in this Act" to entertain an
objection to any valuation, assessment or levy of octroi.
This part of the
provision is in the nature of ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts. at least
by
necessary impi1cation, to entertain an objection to any valuation, assessment
or levy. [187 A]
1. Two of the propositions bearing on the construction of statutes which
expressly or by necessary implication bar the jurisdiction of civil courts stated
iro Dlwlabhai & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1968] 3 SCR 662 and
B
·which are reh::Yant for
the purposeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.