Statutory remedy election bars civil challenge to tax assessment, and interim injunction fails without bona fides or prima facie case

A civil challenge to a sales tax assessment is generally not maintainable where the taxpayer has already elected and pursued the statutory appellate remedy, especially after accepting the jurisdiction of the tax authorities. The statutory bars under the Delhi Sales Tax Act and the Haryana General Sales Tax Act reinforced the objection to civil court jurisdiction. Interim injunction was refused because the plaintiff lacked bona fides, had no prima facie case, and failed to show balance of convenience. The revisional court also declined interference, holding that the concurrent orders rejecting interim relief fell within the limited scope of revisional review.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil suit challenging the sales tax assessment and demand was maintainable in view of the statutory bar and the plaintiff's prior recourse to the appellate remedies under the sales tax law; whether the plaintiff had made out a case for interim injunction; and whether interference in revision was warranted with the concurrent orders refusing interim relief.

Analysis: Relief of injunction is discretionary and depends upon fair conduct, bona fides, a prima facie case, and balance of convenience. The plaintiff had already invoked the remedies under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and had also approached the Delhi High Court, where the condition imposed for hearing the appeal was modified. Having elected that statutory route and having accepted the jurisdiction of the tax authorities, the plaintiff could not turn around and challenge the assessment before the civil court on the plea of lack of jurisdiction. The statutory bar under Section 67 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 and Section 62 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 reinforced the doubt about maintainability. The prior orders had attained finality between the parties. The authorities had also recorded reasons supporting the assessment, and the plaintiff's conduct showed absence of bona fides. On these facts, the courts below rightly held that no prima facie case or balance of convenience existed in favour of the plaintiff. The revisional court found no ground to interfere within the limited scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to interim injunction, and the refusal to interfere with the concurrent orders was justified.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent denial of interim relief was sustained, and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that has chosen and pursued the statutory appellate mechanism against a tax assessment cannot ordinarily invoke civil jurisdiction to impeach the assessment on jurisdictional grounds, and interim injunction will be refused where bona fides, prima facie entitlement, and balance of convenience are absent.

---