TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses suit challenging final assessment orders, finds plaintiff estopped, lacks jurisdiction, and bars by limitation.</h1> <h3>Parry and Company Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu and Others</h3> The court dismissed the suit, holding that it was not maintainable as the assessment orders had become final and could not be challenged indirectly ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the transactions in question are in the course of importRs.2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the legality of the assessment order in so far as it relates to the disputed turnoverRs.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the tax levied and collected under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, even though the plaintiff has allowed the assessment to become final by not challenging the same before the appropriate statutory authoritiesRs.4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interestRs.5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in lawRs.6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suitRs.7. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file this suitRs.8. Whether the suit is barred by limitationRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue No. 5: Whether the suit is not maintainable in lawRs.The court examined the contention that the suit is barred by section 51 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Citing precedents such as *Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay* and *State of Madras v. Ramakrishna Mills (Coimbatore) Ltd.*, it was held that the sales tax authority has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the liability of transactions to sales tax. The plaintiff's reliance on cases like *Venkataraman & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras* and *Arvind N. Mafatlal v. Union of India* was dismissed as inapplicable. The court concluded that the suit is not maintainable since the assessment orders had become final and could not be challenged indirectly through a suit for refund. The court emphasized that section 51 is intended to prevent collateral attacks on assessment orders.Issue No. 1: Whether the transactions in question are in the course of importRs.In light of the finding on Issue No. 5, the court did not decide the nature of the transactions.Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the legality of the assessment order in so far as it relates to the disputed turnoverRs.The court found that the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the legality of the assessment order by way of collateral proceedings. The assessment order had become final, and the plaintiff had not raised the issue before the appropriate statutory authorities.Issue No. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the tax levied and collected under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, even though the plaintiff has allowed the assessment to become final by not challenging the same before the appropriate statutory authoritiesRs.The court held that since the appellate order dated 20th July, 1968, had become final, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim a refund of the tax. The issue was decided against the plaintiff.Issue No. 6: Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suitRs.Based on the finding on Issue No. 5, the court held that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit.Issue No. 7: Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file this suitRs.The court found that the assessment order had become final, and since the plaintiff did not raise the issue before the concerned taxing authority, it has no cause of action to file this suit.Issue No. 8: Whether the suit is barred by limitationRs.The court examined the plaintiff's claim that the mistake was discovered only on 14th October, 1968, but found this statement incorrect based on the plaintiff's objection letter dated 14th March, 1968, which referenced the relevant Supreme Court decision. The suit, filed on 20th March, 1972, was thus beyond the three-year limitation period. The court concluded that the suit is barred by limitation.Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interestRs.Since the court concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled to the main relief, there is no question of entitlement to any interest.Conclusion:The suit was dismissed with costs to defendants 1 and 2. There was no order as to costs regarding defendants 3 and 4.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
