Civil court jurisdiction and limitation in sales tax refund suits turn on statutory exclusion, notice compliance, and place of sale.

Section 80 CPC requires substantial, not pedantic, compliance where the notice and plaint fairly disclose the tax grievance and refund claim. A suit for recovery of illegally levied sales tax is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1908, not Section 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, and is not barred if brought within that period. Civil court jurisdiction remains available absent clear statutory exclusion. Under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the place of sale depends on the parties' intention and the passing of property, so sales completed on delivery against railway receipt outside Madras were outside the Province, while internal sales were taxable. A composite assessment is not void in toto where taxable and non-taxable turnover can be separated.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 substantially complied with the statutory requirement; (ii) whether the suit for refund of sales tax was barred by limitation and whether Section 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act or Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied; (iii) whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging levy and collection of sales tax; (iv) whether the transactions in question were sales inside or outside the Province of Madras having regard to the passing of property under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930; and (v) whether a composite assessment including taxable and non-taxable turnover was invalid in toto.

Issue (i): whether the suit notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 substantially complied with the statutory requirement.

Analysis: The notice and plaint both stated the real cause of action as the illegal levy and collection of tax and claimed refund of the amount. The difference in wording as to whether the tax was paid under protest or collected under coercion did not alter the substance of the notice. Section 80 requires substantial, not pedantic, compliance and the defendant was sufficiently informed of the grievance and relief sought.

Conclusion: The suit notice was held to be in conformity with Section 80 and the suit was not defective on that ground, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the suit for refund of sales tax was barred by limitation and whether Section 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act or Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied.

Analysis: Section 18 was held to be confined to suits for compensation or damages and not to suits questioning illegal levy or collection of sales tax. Since the taxing statute did not exclude the ordinary civil remedy, Article 62 governed the action for recovery of money paid or collected as tax. On that footing, the suit was within time.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation and Article 62 applied, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging levy and collection of sales tax.

Analysis: The presence of appeal and revision under the taxing statute did not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of civil courts. In the absence of clear statutory exclusion, an assessee could sue to challenge the legality of a tax demand and recover tax alleged to have been unlawfully collected.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): whether the transactions in question were sales inside or outside the Province of Madras having regard to the passing of property under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

Analysis: Under Section 23(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, delivery to a carrier ordinarily amounts to appropriation, but the intention of the parties and any reservation of the right of disposal are decisive. Where the consignor and consignee were the seller and where the miller consigned to the plaintiff, the property passed only on delivery of the railway receipt against payment outside the Province, so those sales were outside Madras. Where the buyer was the consignor and consignee, and where the seller consigned directly to the buyer without proving a contrary intention, the sales were completed within the Province and were taxable.

Conclusion: The sales were partly outside and partly inside the Province of Madras, with tax not leviable on the outside sales but leviable on the inside sales, partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (v): whether a composite assessment including taxable and non-taxable turnover was invalid in toto.

Analysis: A composite assessment containing separable components is not wholly invalid merely because some items are not taxable. The illegal portion can be severed where the taxable and non-taxable turnovers are capable of identification from the evidence and the assessment is not a single inseverable sum.

Conclusion: The composite assessment was not vitiated in toto and only the non-taxable turnover was liable to be excluded, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals resulted in partial relief to the assessee by excluding tax on sales found to have been completed outside the Province, while sustaining tax on the taxable internal sales and rejecting the Revenue's cross-appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing statute does not oust the ordinary civil remedy unless exclusion is clear; a suit for recovery of tax illegally levied is governed by the ordinary limitation for money claims, and the place of sale is determined by the parties' intention as to when property passes under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

---