STATE OF KERALA versus RAMASWAMI IYER & SONS

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 11-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE OF KERA LA 
\' 
RAMASWA'.\11 IYER & SONS 
February I I, 1966 
[P. n. GAJlNDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCllOO, J. c. 
SHAii, S. M. S!KRI ANU \I. RAMASWAMI, JJ.j 
J'ravancore-Cochi11 
Ger1.m1/ 
Sales 
Tax Act (11 of 1125 M.E.)-
Suit to recover excesi tax paid-Jurisdiction of civil court if harrtd. 
Pan of Sales-tax paid by the respondent was assessed upon the amount 
which it collected from its customers as &ales-tax and which was included 
A 
B 
i.o its net tumoYer. 
A suit by the respondent for refund of that part 
C 
of the sales-tax which was charged on the sales-tax collected by the res-
pondent on the basis that it was not lawfully due under the Travancon:. 
Cochin General Sale• Tax Act, 1950, was decreed hy the 1rial court and 
the decree was confirmed by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, it \\'as contended that the civtl coun had no 
jurisdiction to try the suit. 
HELD : By constituting appC\lpriatc authorities under 1hc Act and 
D 
creating a hierarchy of authorities to ()ea] with tho problem of levying 
tax as contemplated by the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court to enter-
tain the suit was excluded by necessary implication. (586 GJ 
Jurisdiction of the ci1il coun to try the suit was not barred by s. 2JA 
ousting tho jurisdiction of the civil court, beca11o;e that aection which was not 
retroipective in operation was in~raled into the Act after the suit was 
filed. 
But the jurisdiction of the c1vil court may bo e<cludcJ by expr°" 
E 
enactment or by necessary intendment arising from the scheme of tho 
Act. 
The Travancore-Cochin Sales Tax Act is a c0mplete code dealing 
\Vilh the levy, a~sessn1cnt, collection and refund of tax. 
It authorises in-
\·estment of power in a hierarchy of authorities to adminio;tL'r the Act. 
For tho purpose of making assessment of tax, the authorities have power 
10 decide all questions ari•;ng before them, and the orders of the appel-
late authorities, 
subject to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the 
Board of Revenue, were declared final. 
The liability to pay tax arose 
I' 
under and by virtue of the provisions of the Act and the quantum or 
liability was determined under the Act alone. 
Further, at the material time. 
there was no cxpreso provision in the Act, which obliged the taxi"g 
authority 
to 
exclude 
from 
the 
computation 
of 
the 
taxable 
turnover the amount of sales-tax collected hy the dealer. 
Hence, it could 
not be said that by 
ass-es'\in~ sales-tax on such amount, the taxing autho-
rity had infringed a prohibition imooscd by the statute upon him. There-
G 
fore, the principle in Secretary of State for India v. Mask and Co. L.R. 67 
I.A. 222, that civil court5 have jurisdiction to examine a case where the 
provision' of the statute have hccn infrin2ed did not apply in the instant 
case. [583 F; 584 C; 585 H-586 B; 589 B] 
Pr'1Ylocla/ Govemme'lt of Madras '" J. S. Basappa, [1964] 5 S.C'.R. 
517; 15 S.T.C. 144 (S.C.), overruled. 
Kamala Mill.v v. State of Bombay, [1966) 1 S.C.R. 64, foJIO\\Cd. 
H 
Georxe Oaks v. State of Madras, [1962[ 2 S.e.R. 570; A.LR. 1962 S.C. 
1037 and K. S Venkataraman v. State of Madras, [1966] 2 S.C.R. 229. 
referred to. 
• 
.. i 
.... -
.. 1 
KERALA v. RAMASWAMI (Shah, J.) 
583 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1104 of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
the October 7, 1963 of the Kerala High Court in A.S. No. 190 of 
1959 . 
C. K. Daphtary, Attomey-General and A. G. Pudissery, for the 
appellant. 
T. N. Subbramania Iyer and M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. For the period August 16, 1950 to March 31, 1951 
the respondents were assessed to sales-tax under the Travancore-
Cochin General Sales-tax Act, 1950, by the assessing authority, 
Moovattupuzha, on a turnover of Rs. 14,04,732/7/6 which in-
cluded Rs. 49,318/7/4 collected 
by the respondents from their 
constituents as tax on their sale transactions. The respondents 
paid the tax assessed and commenced an action in the Court of 
the District Judge, Parur, for a decree for Rs. 7,577/9/1 claiming 
that the amount was in excess of tax lawfully due from them under 
the Act. The Court of First Instance decreed the claim for 
Rs. 7,477/9/1 with interest and proportionate costs, and the High 
Court of Kerala confirmed that decree. 
In this appeal with special leave, on behalf of the State of Kerala 
the principal ground which falls 

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