Court affirms lack of jurisdiction under Section 51 of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act

The High Court dismissed the second appeals, affirming the lower appellate court's decision that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suits due to the specific bar under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The court emphasized that the plaintiff should have pursued remedies under the Act and that the suits were premature, as the plaintiff had not exhausted alternative statutory remedies. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction sought.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court
2. Maintainability of the Suit without Notice under Section 80 CPC
3. Entitlement to Relief of Declaration and Mandatory Injunction

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The primary issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendants argued that the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to the specific bar under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The lower appellate court concurred, noting that the plaintiff should have sought remedy through a revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 33 of the Act. The court emphasized that the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act provided an efficacious remedy for challenging adverse orders and that the civil court could not override this statutory framework. Consequently, the lower appellate court held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, a decision upheld by the High Court.

2. Maintainability of the Suit without Notice under Section 80 CPC:
The second issue was whether the suit was maintainable without issuing notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The lower appellate court found that the trial court's decision to dispense with the notice under Section 80(2) CPC was not germane to the case. The court held that the plaintiff had not exhausted the alternative remedies provided under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, making the suit premature. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that the plaintiff should have pursued the statutory remedies before approaching the civil court.

3. Entitlement to Relief of Declaration and Mandatory Injunction:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that the notices dated March 23, 1993, were illegal and arbitrary and a mandatory injunction to release the seized lorries and goods. The trial court had initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the goods were in transit to Kerala and not subject to Tamil Nadu sales tax. However, the lower appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the bona fide nature of the transportation. The court noted that the defendants had presented substantial evidence indicating tax evasion. The High Court upheld this view, stating that the impugned notices were show cause notices and that the plaintiff had an efficacious alternative remedy under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the second appeals, affirming the lower appellate court's decision that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits and that the plaintiff should have sought remedies under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The court emphasized the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy and the premature nature of the suits filed by the plaintiff.

---