Civil court jurisdiction survives for allegedly illegal seizure, but blanket injunctions cannot block tax authorities' statutory action.

An express bar on civil court jurisdiction does not exclude a suit seeking return of account books, records, files and floppies where the pleaded case is that tax officers seized them without following the mandatory statutory search and seizure procedure; in that situation, the civil court may examine whether the seizure was unlawful and beyond authority. By contrast, a blanket permanent injunction restraining the tax authorities from issuing notices, initiating proceedings, or passing orders would directly interfere with statutory powers and is barred. The commentary therefore distinguishes between a maintainable claim for return of allegedly illegally seized materials and an impermissible attempt to block statutory action.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for return of account books, records, files and floppies allegedly seized without following the procedure prescribed by the statute and rules; (ii) Whether the suit could seek a permanent injunction restraining the tax authorities from initiating or continuing proceedings until those materials were returned.

Issue (i): Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for return of account books, records, files and floppies allegedly seized without following the procedure prescribed by the statute and rules.

Analysis: The statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction operates against suits questioning assessments, orders, decisions, or matters falling within the scope of the taxing authority, but it does not oust the civil court where the pleaded case is that the officers acted outside the prescribed procedure and the seizure itself is illegal. The pleadings alleged seizure without receipt, without recording reasons, and without compliance with the statutory search and seizure procedure, which would, if proved, take the matter outside the protection of the bar and raise a factual dispute requiring evidence. The civil court could therefore examine whether the alleged seizure was unlawful and beyond statutory authority.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable to the extent it sought return of the allegedly illegally seized materials.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit could seek a permanent injunction restraining the tax authorities from initiating or continuing proceedings until those materials were returned.

Analysis: A prayer that restrains the authorities from taking action, issuing notices, or passing orders would directly impede statutory functions and fall within the express bar covering matters within the scope of the authority. The relief was treated as an indirect attempt to prevent reassessment and other proceedings through a consequential prayer, despite the availability of the statutory appellate and revisional hierarchy after any order is passed. Such a blanket injunction would frustrate the statutory scheme and could not be granted as consequential relief.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable to the extent it sought to restrain the tax authorities from proceeding under the Act.

Final Conclusion: The civil revision petitions succeeded only in part: the challenge to the injunction against statutory action was upheld, while the claim for return of the allegedly seized documents survived for adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: An express bar on civil court jurisdiction does not protect a seizure alleged to have been made in violation of the mandatory statutory procedure, but it does bar a blanket injunction that would prevent tax authorities from exercising their statutory powers.

---