Civil court jurisdiction and sales tax assessments: statutory bar does not protect orders made in breach of basic judicial procedure.

Section 17 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 bars civil court jurisdiction in matters covered by the Act, but that exclusion does not apply where the assessing authority has not complied with the statute or has acted in breach of fundamental judicial procedure. On the facts described, the assessing officer relied on secret information without examining the purchaser, despite the assessee's categorical denial of any sale to that party. That failure to test the material by basic procedural standards was treated as a fatal defect, so the civil suit was not barred and the assessment orders were liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil suit challenging the assessment was barred by section 17 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and whether the assessment orders could be interfered with on the ground that the sales tax authority had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

Analysis: Section 17 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, excludes civil court jurisdiction in matters covered by the Act, but that exclusion does not extend to cases where the statutory provisions have not been complied with or where the tribunal has acted in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. On the facts found, the assessing officer accepted secret information without examining the purchaser, despite the assessee's categorical denial of any sale to that party. Such non-examination amounted to a departure from basic judicial procedure and could not be cured by the bar of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred, and the assessment orders were rightly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was liable to be dismissed, leaving the assessee successful in challenging the recovery based on the impugned assessments.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar on civil suits does not protect an assessment order where the authority has failed to comply with the Act or has acted in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

---