TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1963 (11) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47. They arise out of three suits filed by Basappa against the Provincial Government of Madras now represented by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the details of which are given below. For the year 1944-45, Basappa was assessed to sales tax amounting to Rs. 12,983-2-2 of which, according to him, a sum of Rs. 1,594-1-5 only represented sales within the Province. He claimed that the remaining sales took place outside the Province of Madras. He submitted that property in the goods remained with him till the export of the goods to an extra-Provincial point and till payment of price after export. He claimed that these sales could not be included in his turnover under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Act No. IX of 1939) and sales tax was wrongly demanded from him. In respect of this assessment, he filed O. S. No. 14 of 1950 (original No. O. S. 40 of 1949) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnol, for refund of Rs. 11,389-0-9. The Madras State Government in a written statement traversed all the allegations and stated that delivery of the goods was made in Kurnool when the goods were booked and further that the goods were despatched at buy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a had not pleaded in these two suits that payment of the tax was made under a mistake. The Sub- ordinate Judge, however, held that O.S. No. 23 of 1949 was in time. In O.S. Nos. 14 of 1950 and 44 of 1949, he recorded findings that taxes amounting to Rs. 7,203-12-9 in respect of O.S. No. 14 of 1950 and Rs. 5,370-7-0 in respect of O.S. No. 44 1949 were wrongly levied, because those amounts concerned sales which took place outside the Province of Madras. In O.S. No. 23 of 1949, he held that sales of the value of Rs. 79,465 took place outside the Province and tax in respect of them at 1 per cent. (which was the uniform rate applicable to all the three years) was not demandable. A declaration to this effect was granted and an injunction was issued restraining the State Government from recovering Rs. 793-10-6 from Basappa. In the result, O.S. No. 14 of 1950 and 44 of 1949 were dismissed with costs and O.S. No. 23 of 1949 was partially decreed with proportionate costs. Basappa appealed in all the three suits against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool. The Government of Madras objected in the appeal of Basappa from the decision in O.S. No. 23 of 1949 in respect of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by time under section 18 of the Sales Tax Act, and (3) that the High Court was wrong in holding that the assessments were not capable of being split up and in declaring the total assessments to be void. The first two points give no trouble at all. Section 18 of the Act reads: "No suit shall be instituted against the State Government and no suit, prosecution or other proceeding shall be instituted against any officer or servant of the State Government in respect of any act done or purporting to be done under this Act, unless the suit, prosecution or other proceeding is instituted within six months from the date of the act complained of." This section applies to suits for damages and compensation in respect of acts under the Act. It is worded in familiar language by which authorities, including Government, are protected and indemnified in respect of bona fide acts done or purporting to be done under powers conferred by the statute. The period of limitation prescribed in the section does not apply to the kind of suits which were filed by Basappa. This point has no substance and was not even pressed in the High Court. Similarly, the first point ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial procedure. Gajendragadkar, J., speaking for the Court on that occasion, summed up the law as follows: "In dealing with the question whether civil court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit is barred or not, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that there is a general presumption that there must be a remedy in the ordinary civil courts to a citizen claiming that an amount has been recovered from him illegally and that such a remedy can be held to be barred only on very clear and unmistakable indication to the contrary. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain civil causes will not be assumed unless the relevant statute contains an express pro- vision to that effect, or leads to a necessary and inevitable implication of that nature. The mere fact that a special statute provides for certain remedies may not by itself necessarily exclude the jurisdiction of the civil courts to deal with a case brought before it in respect of some of the matters covered by the said statute." Referring to the remarks of Lord Thankerton in Secretary of State represented by the Collector of South Arcot v. Mask and Co. [1940] 67 I.A. 222 at 236., "it is also well-se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alid an action which was not warranted by the Act, as for example, the levy of tax on a commodity which was not taxed at all or was exempt. In the present case, the taxing of sales which did not take place within the State was a matter wholly outside the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and in respect of such illegal action the jurisdiction of the civil court continued to subsist. In our judgment the suits were competent. The last question is whether the assessment as a whole must fail or only in respect of the part which was outside the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Authorities. We have already reproduced the four categories into which all the transactions of sale were classified. The High Court and the Court below found that categories 1 and 4 represented transactions of sale which could not be taxed at all by the authorities as those transactions took place outside the State. It may be mentioned that the Sales Tax Act did not then contain any provision which established a nexus between the sales and the Province. That provision came later. The High Court relying upon Ram Narain's case [1955] 2 S.C.R. 483; 6 S.T.C. 627. held that the assessments as a whole must fail. In ....