LexFIRM SETH RADHA KISHAN (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HARI KISHAN AND OTHERS versus THE, ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, LUDHIANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
; 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 273 We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the view expressed by the High Court is the correct view and respondent No. 1 is entitled to the benefit of sub-s. (2) of s. 19 read with cl. (iii) of s. 16 of the amending Act of 1948, provided he establishes that he is an agriculturist within the meaning of the princi- pal Act. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. A ppe-J l dismissed. FIRM SETH R ADHA KI.SHAN (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HARI KISHAN AND OTHERS v. THE, ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, LUDHIANA (K. SUBBA Ri1.o, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Terminal Tax-Municipality-Collection of-Remedies by way of appeal provided in the Act-Expre.s or implied exclusion of Civil courts-Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (Pnnj. I TI of 1911), s.•. 61, 78, 84, 86-Punjab Government Notification No. 26443 dated July, 21, 1932-Items 68, 69 of the Scheditle-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), s. 90. The appellant is a firm carrying on business within the octroi limits of Ludhiana Municipality. On the Sambhar salt imported by it into the limits of the Municip:ility terminal tax was imposed and the appellant made payment of the said tax. Under item 68 of the Schedule to the relevant Govtrnment Notificatinn the Municipality is entitled to impose a certain rate of tax on common salt and under item 69 it is entitled to impose a higher rate of tax in respect of salt of all kinds other than common salt. In the present case the higher rate was imposed. The appellant filed a suit against the respondent in the civil co11rt, Ludhina, for the refund of the amount paid by him, 1963 Lakshmi Achi v. T.V.V. Kailasa Thevar Das J. 1963 March 7 1963 Firm R12aha Kishan (Dt:tas1d) Rtflre- stnted hJ• J/11ri KiJM'I •• Administrator, .\!uni· .1'pal Cornmitltt, Lu/Jiiana 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. The Civil Court held that Sambhar salt was common salt ~ithin the meaning of item 68, that the imposition of tax on it by the respondent under item 69 was illegal and that there- fore the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On appe;1l the High Court p1oceeded on the assumption that Sambhar salt was common salt but held that, even so, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the Act provi<led a remedy by way of appeal against the wrong orders of the authorities thereunder. The present appeal is by way of certificate granted by the High Court. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the respondent had no power to impose terminal tax on comm<ln salt under item 69 of the Schedule and therefore the tax having been imposed contrary to the provisions of the Act, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The contention on behalf of the respondent was that the respondent has power to impose terminal tax on comu1on salt under the provisions of the :\ct, that the imposition of tax under a \vrong entry could be rectified only in the manner P"5cribed by the Act and that the CivU Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the refuad of the tax collected when a specific remedy is available under the Act. Held, that a statute can expressly or by necessary impliea- tlon bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of a parti- cular matter. The mere confirment of special _jurisdiction on a tribunal in respect of the said matter does not in itself exclude the jurisdiction of civil C'..ourts. The stat11te may specifically provide for vesting the jurisdiction of civil Courts, even if there was no such specific exclusion, if it creates a liability not existing before and gives a special and particular remedy for the aggrieved party, the remedy provided by it must be followed. The same principle would apply if the statute had provided for the particular forum in which the same remedy could be had. Even in sui:h cases the civil Court's jurisdiction is not completely ousted. i\ ~uit in a civil Court 'will ahvays lie to question the order of a tribunal created by a statute, even if it<s order is, expressly or hy necessary implication, made final, ~ if the said tribunal abuses its power or dors l10: act 'clnder the 1 Act but in violation uf its provision. ll"olt-erhamton New IJ'aterlDorl:. Co. v. Hdwkujor-1, (1859) G G. B. (>I. S.) 336, Secretary of State v . .llast & Co., (1940) L. R. 67 I. A. 222, Bhai-<hankar Nanabhai v. Municipal Corpo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.