Civil suit for refund is maintainable where tax is collected under a constitutionally void levy and jurisdiction is not clearly excluded.

A civil suit for refund lies where sales tax is collected under notifications that are constitutionally void and beyond the taxing authority's power. An ouster provision or finality clause does not bar civil jurisdiction unless the statute clearly excludes that remedy by express words or necessary implication. Statutory remedies such as appeal, revision, rectification, reference and refund also do not displace the civil court where the levy itself is ultra vires or the collection is without lawful authority. The suit was therefore maintainable and refund was held payable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950 barred a civil suit to recover sales tax collected under notifications which were void as offending Article 301 and not saved by Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the existence of statutory remedies of appeal, revision, rectification, reference and refund excluded the civil court's jurisdiction where the levy itself was outside the taxing power of the authorities.

Issue (i): Whether section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950 barred a civil suit to recover sales tax collected under notifications which were void as offending Article 301 and not saved by Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of civil courts is excluded only by express words or by clear necessary implication. A finality clause or an ouster provision does not by itself protect an action that is wholly outside the statute or founded on a levy which is constitutionally void. Where the charging notifications themselves are invalid, the assessment machinery cannot validate the collection, and the suit is not one for mere correction of assessment but for recovery of money realised without lawful authority.

Conclusion: The bar in section 17 did not defeat the suit. The suit was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of statutory remedies of appeal, revision, rectification, reference and refund excluded the civil court's jurisdiction where the levy itself was outside the taxing power of the authorities.

Analysis: Statutory remedies may exclude a civil suit where the dispute is only about the correctness of an assessment made within jurisdiction. They do not exclude a suit where the authorities have acted outside the Act or where the levy is unconstitutional and the Act affords no effective machinery to recover tax illegally collected. In such a case, the ordinary civil remedy remains available notwithstanding the presence of appellate or revisional procedures.

Conclusion: The statutory remedies did not exclude the civil suit in the present case.

Final Conclusion: The tax collection was held unlawful, the civil court's jurisdiction was not ousted, and the appellants were entitled to refund of the amounts recovered from them.

Ratio Decidendi: A civil suit for refund lies where tax is collected under a levy that is ultra vires or wholly without jurisdiction, unless the statute clearly and effectively excludes that remedy; a mere finality clause or ordinary assessment machinery is insufficient to bar the suit.

---