LexFIRM AND ILLURI SUBBAYYA CHETTY AND SONS versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 ;i.11 of I? ajo.th m y, Sripof Jain W4tt<hoo, J. 1963 , .,,,,.,, • 15. 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. case of this kind is given to the Minister-in-charge under r. 21. The definitions therefore of "Government" and "the State Government" in the Rajasthan General Clauses Act are of no help to the respondent once it is held that r. 31 (vii) (a) of the Business Rules when it speaks of "compulsory retiring of any officer" refers only to compulsory retirrment as a penalty under r. 14 of the Classifi· cation Rules and not to the two other kinds of retirement (namely, superannuation under r. 56 or retirement under r. 244 (2) of the service Rules). The appeal is therefore allowed and the ordrr of the High Court srt aside. In the circumstancea we pass no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. FIRM AND ILLURI SUBBAYYA CHETTY AND SONS ti. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (B. P. SINJIA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRA.GADIUB, K. N. WANCHoo, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) Civil Caurl-Jurisdi<tion-Exclusion of-" Any a•u•...,..lll made under thi• Act" meaning of-Scope of-Madraa General Salta Tax Act, 1939 (Mad. 9 of 1939), 1. 18-A. The appellant filed a suit against the rc.pondent for a decree for Rs. 8339/• on the ground that the said amount had been illegally recovered from it under the Madras Gcnrral Sales Tax Act, 1939, for the years 1952-54. The respondent 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 753 resisted the claim on the ground that the suit was incompetent under s. 18-A of the Act. On the merits, it was contended that the transactions in regard to groundnuts on which sales tax was levied and recovered from the appellant were transactions of purchase and not of sale, and it was urged that the appellant having voluntarily made the return and paid the truces, it was itot open to it to contend that the transactions were not tax.able under the Act. Besides it was argued that the appellant had not preferred an appeal either to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes or to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal against the assessments and hence the suit was not maintainable. The suit was decreed by the trial court but the High Court reversed that decision and dismissed the suit on the ground that in view of the provisions of s. 18-A of the Act, the suit was incompetent. Alternatively, it wa< found on merits that the claim made by the appellant was not justified. The appellant came to this Court by special leave. Held, that s. 18-A excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to set aside or modify anv assessment made under the Act. There is Il'> express provisi0n in the Act under which the suit can be said to have been filed and it falls under the prohibition contained in this section. The prohibition is express and unambiguous and no suit can he entertained by a Civil Court, if by institutin~ the suit, the plaintiff wants to set aside or modify any assessment ma.de under the Act. Where an order of assessment has been made by an appropriate au~hority under the provisions of the Act, any cliallenge to its cnrrcctness and any attempt either to have it set aside or modified must be made before the appellate or revisional forum prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Act. A suit insti- tuted for that purpose is barred under s. 18-A. When the appellant made its voluntary returns and paid the tax in advanee to be adjusted at the end of the year from time to time, it treated the ~roundnut transactions as taxable. The appellant having conceded the taxable character of the transactions in question, no ocrasion arose for the taxing' authorities to consider whether the said transactions could be taxed or not. Even after the impugned orders of assessment were made, the appellant did not choose to file an appeal and ur~e before the appellate authority tha: the transactions were sale transactions and as such were outside the purview of s. SA (2). If an orde.r made by a taxing authority under the relevant provisions of the Act in a case where the taxable character of a transaction is dlqputed, is final and cannot be challenged in a civil court by a separate suit, the position is just 1969 Firm and fUuri Sulbayya Chltl.1 & Sons •. Thi Star1 of Andhra Pradul> 1963 Firm a1llf flluri Subb'!'Ya Clr<11y & s.., Tu Stull of l.Jtdlwa Pi atJ.sla 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. the 5'mc whcrr thr taxable character of the transactions is not even disputed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.