Civil court jurisdiction and composite local tax limits: ultra vires levies remain reviewable, while property-based tax components survive the professions tax cap.

A civil court is not barred from examining a levy where the assessment is alleged to be ultra vires and beyond the local authority's statutory taxing power, because an exclusion clause protects only assessments made within the Act. A composite tax on circumstances and property must be characterised by its real nature, and the component referable to professions, trades, callings or employments is subject to the statutory cap under the Professions Tax Limitation Act, 1941. The property component is not affected by that cap and remains recoverable if otherwise authorised by the taxing statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bar of civil court jurisdiction under Section 131 of the U.P. District Boards Act, 1922 prevented a suit challenging an assessment alleged to be beyond the Board's lawful taxing power; and (ii) whether the Professions Tax Limitation Act, 1941 restricted the District Board's power to levy tax on circumstances and property to the extent that it was referable to income from professions, trades, callings or employments, while leaving the property element unaffected.

Issue (i): Whether the bar of civil court jurisdiction under Section 131 of the U.P. District Boards Act, 1922 prevented a suit challenging an assessment alleged to be beyond the Board's lawful taxing power.

Analysis: The bar against questioning valuation, assessment, or liability under the Act operates only where the assessment is made within the framework of the statute. If the Board acts outside its jurisdiction or imposes a tax not authorised by law, the assessment is not one made in accordance with the Act and the civil court is not excluded. A statutory tribunal must act within the limits of the power conferred on it, and an ultra vires levy can be examined by a civil court notwithstanding the exclusion clause.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the extent the levy was alleged to be ultra vires and beyond the Board's statutory power.

Issue (ii): Whether the Professions Tax Limitation Act, 1941 restricted the District Board's power to levy tax on circumstances and property to the extent that it was referable to income from professions, trades, callings or employments, while leaving the property element unaffected.

Analysis: The levy described as tax on circumstances and property was examined by its real nature and not by its label. The scheme of Sections 108 and 114 of the U.P. District Boards Act, 1922 showed that the tax was composite in character and was measured by total taxable income, including income from trade and from property. The Professions Tax Limitation Act, 1941, which capped taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments at fifty rupees per annum, applied to that part of the assessment which was referable to income from trade or other covered avocations. The property component was not hit by that limitation and remained valid under the pre-existing taxing power saved by Section 143(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935.

Conclusion: The tax referable to trade, professions, callings and employments was confined to fifty rupees per annum, but the tax referable to property was valid and recoverable in addition.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of maintaining the levy within the statutory cap for the trade-related component, while upholding the property-related component of the assessment; the remainder of the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exclusion of civil court jurisdiction does not protect a levy that is ultra vires the taxing statute, and a composite local tax measured by income must be severed so that any component falling within a statutory cap is reduced accordingly, while a distinct and unaffected property component may still be levied.

---