Statutory bar on civil suits for octroi reassessment disputes leaves refund and double-duty claims to special remedies.

The municipal law created a complete appellate, revisional and reference scheme for objections to octroi valuation, assessment and levy, and section 84(3) barred such challenges from being raised in any other manner or before any other authority. A civil suit seeking refund of octroi duty and double duty was therefore not maintainable, because the dispute concerned the correctness of reassessment and levy within the statutory framework, not an unconstitutional levy. The proper remedy lay exclusively before the statutory authorities, and the ordinary civil jurisdiction was excluded by the express bar and special remedy structure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil suit for refund of octroi duty and double duty was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate and revisional machinery and the bar contained in the municipal law.

Analysis: The municipal enactment empowered the committee to impose octroi and the rules prescribed the mode of assessment, collection and refund. It also created a complete hierarchy of remedies by appeal, revision and reference, and section 84(3) expressly provided that no objection to valuation, assessment or levy could be taken in any other manner or before any other authority than that provided by the Act. A challenge to the correctness of an assessment, including whether the authorities had wrongly reopened assessments or wrongly imposed double duty, was therefore a matter for the statutory authorities and not for a civil suit. The case did not involve an unconstitutional levy; it concerned the legality and correctness of assessment within the statutory framework. The existence of adequate special remedies, coupled with the express bar, excluded the ordinary civil remedy.

Conclusion: The civil suit was not maintainable and the challenge to the reassessment and levy of double duty was barred by the statute. The decision is in favour of the revenue.

---