DHULABHAI AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 662 · Decided: 05-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 35 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DHULABHAI AND OTHERS 
'V. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER 
April 5, 1968 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, C. A. VAIDIALIN• 
GAM, K. S. HEGDE AND A, N. GROVER, JI.] 
M«lhya Bharat Sales Tax Act (30 of 1950), s. 11-lurisdiction of 
civil court barred-Scope of the bar. 
By Notifications issued by the State Govetnment under s. S of the 
Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, sales-tax was imposed and collected 
from the appellants. They filed suits for refund of the tax on the ground 
that it was illegally collected from them being against the constitutional 
prohibition in Art. 301 and not saved under Art. 304(a). In Bhailal v. 
State of M.P. [(1960) M.P.L.J. 601), the petitioner therein challenged 
in a writ petition, the levy of sales tax on the same grounds and the High 
Coun declared the notifications to be offensive to Art. 30 I and held that 
the imposition of tax was illegal. Following that decision, the !'rial court 
decreed the suits filed by the appellants. In appeal before the High Court 
it was conceded by the State that the tax. could not be imposed in view 
of Art. 301, but it was contended that the suits were not maintainable 
in view of s. 17 of the Act which provides that no assessment made under 
the Act shall be called in question in any court. Tue High Coun held 
that the suits were incompetent. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The suits were maintainable. [684 DJ 
An enquiry into the diverse views expressed in the decisions of this 
Court shows that an exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil cowt is not readily 
to be inferred unless the following conditions apply : 
(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special 
tribunals the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there 
is adequate remedy lo do what the civil courts would normally do in a 
suit. 
Such provision, however. does not exclude those cases where the 
provisions of the patticular Act have not been complied with or the 
statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental prin-
ciples of judicial procedure. [682 A-C; 683 CJ 
Secretary of State v. Mask [1940] L.R. 67 I.A. 222; Fi'rm 11/uri Sub-
ba,vY<J Chetty & Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1964) 1 S.C.R. 752 and 
Kera/a v. Ramoswami Iyer and Sons, [1966] 3 S.C.R. 582. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
In Firm Illuri Subbttyya Chetty & Sons' case the assessee conceded 
G 
that the tax was payable and did not raise the issue before the appellate 
authorities under the Act. The suit for refund of tax was held not 
maintainable on those special facts, with reference to the addition of a. 
ISA excluding the jurisdiction of civil court and the special remedies 
provided in ss. 12A to 120 in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. 
This Court. however, did not think it necessary to pronounce any opinion 
on the Judicial Committee's view in 
the Rcleigh Investment Co. case 
([1947) L.R. 74 I.A. 50) that even the vires of the provisions could be 
H 
consideted by the Tribunals constituted under the Act. Dealing with 
Mask & Co.'s case, it was pointed out that non-compliance 
with 
the 
provisions of the statute meant non-compliance with such fundamental 
B 
( 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
DHULABHAI V, MADHYA PRADESH 
663 
provisions of the statute as would make the entire proceedings before the 
appropriate authority illegal and 
without 
jurisdiction. 
[679 
G-H; 
680 D-D] 
(2) Whore there is an expreso bar o~ the jurisdiction of the coutt, 
an examination of the scheme of the pal11cular Act to find the ad~uacy 
or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but ,. not 
decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. [682 DJ 
Whore there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies 
and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment become& 
aecessary and the result of the inquiry may be deci~ive. . In the I~ 
c~ it is necessary to see if the slia~ute creates ~ special .rig~~ or a liab1· 
lily and provides for the determination of the n~t or hab11tty, !"'d fur-
ther lays down that all . questions about. the said nght and habilt!Y oball 
be determined by the tnbunals so consltf:ujed, and whether remedies nor-
mally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said 
statute or not. [682 D-F] 
In Provincial Government v. J. S. Basappa, [1964J 5 S.C.R. 517 it 
was held that the civil court had jurisdiction beca.use, at the relevant 
time, (a) the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, did not have s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.