Statutory bar and validating continuance order barred challenge to a sales tax assessment and preserved the levy.

Section 18-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act bars any suit or proceeding, except as provided by the Act, to set aside or modify an assessment, so civil court jurisdiction is excluded for such challenges. The text also states that the Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950 preserved the levy of tax lawfully imposed by a State before the Constitution even if it conflicted with Article 286(2), and therefore operated as a complete answer to that constitutional objection. On that reasoning, a civil suit to upset the assessment was not maintainable and the Article 286(2) challenge could not invalidate the levy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a civil suit to set aside a sales tax assessment was maintainable in view of the statutory bar; (ii) Whether the assessment could be treated as invalid for contravention of Article 286(2) of the Constitution notwithstanding the Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950.

Issue (i): Whether a civil suit to set aside a sales tax assessment was maintainable in view of the statutory bar.

Analysis: Section 18-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act expressly prohibited any suit or other proceeding, except as provided in the Act, for setting aside or modifying an assessment made under the Act. The Court relied on the earlier consideration of the same statutory scheme and concluded that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable and the objection to maintainability succeeded against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment could be treated as invalid for contravention of Article 286(2) of the Constitution notwithstanding the Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950.

Analysis: The Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950 continued the levy of any tax on the sale or purchase of goods that was lawfully levied by a State immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, even if such levy was contrary to Article 286(2). That order furnished a complete answer to the challenge based on the constitutional prohibition.

Conclusion: The assessment could not be struck down on the ground of inconsistency with Article 286(2), and this objection also failed against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was liable to fail both on maintainability and on merits, so the assessee obtained no relief and the assessment stood undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute contains an express bar against suits to set aside assessments, civil court jurisdiction is excluded, and a validating continuance order may preserve the levy notwithstanding a constitutional objection under Article 286(2).

---