TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (2) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Court without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the plaintiffappellant had an alternative remedy by way of a regular suit. Later on, application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed and a special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court also met with the same fate. It was finally rejected on 3rd October, 1955. The appellant was therefore obliged to file a suit as the assessment for the years mentioned was arbitrary, wrong and baseless. It was further urged that the authorities had no jurisdiction and the assessment was made ex parte. The appellant, being a dealer in agricultural implements from scrap iron, was exempt from the payment of the sales tax in accordance with section 2(f) of item 29 of Schedule I under the Act. It was contended on behalf of the defendant-respondent that the appellant was a dealer in goods or articles manufactured out of iron and steel. His claim that he was only a dealer in agricultural implements from scrap iron was not correct. The tax for the year 1951-52 had not been paid by the appellant and accordingly as he had failed to furnish the statements and produce accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceeding is founded upon the same cause of action and is prosecuted in good faith in a court, which from defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like nature is unable to entertain it." The pre-requisites for the application of this section are that the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding in a court of appeal and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature is unable to entertain it. This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction is certainly a court of appeal within the meaning of that section. But the question is whether the time spent in pursuing the matter in the High Court can be computed for the purpose of appeal as it could not be held that this Court from defect of jurisdiction was unable to entertain the petition. The jurisdiction of this Court in writ petition is certainly wide enough to cover cases of this nature. Strictly construing the section, therefore, it could not be held that the writ petition was dismissed from the defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. But, in the cases cited before me, it has been held that this section has to be liberally construed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f jurisdiction or any cause of a like nature. I am inclined to follow the dictum that section 14 requires liberal construction. The discussion is more or less of an academic nature inasmuch as it has been conceded that according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Provincial Government of Madras (Now Andhra Pradesh) v. J.S. Basappa[1964] 15 S.T.C. 144., it has been held that the period of limitation prescribed in section 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, applies to suits for damages and compensation in respect of acts done under the Act and does not apply to suits for refund of tax alleged to be illegally collected. Section 18 of the Madras Act is in pari materia with section 24 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the period of limitation will be three years from the date of the levy of the sales tax. In that view the suit will be within time coupled with the fact that section 14 of the Limitation Act will be attracted to it. Therefore, so far as the question of limitation is concerned, it has to be answered in favour of the appellant. The next question for consideration (which is the main question) is whether the appellant is liable to exemption o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rth over two lakhs of rupees. They purchased the material from the military disposals and auctions all over India. The attitude of the assessee was very unhelpful in giving any information regarding business. The closed books of other dealers of the same business at Ranigunj disclosed a turnover of about Rs. 4,00,000 during the previous year. This dealer is far bigger than the other dealers. The total business could, therefore, be easily estimated at Rs. 4,50,000; for the assessment order filed by the party estimated the sales at Rs. 4,00,000 in the previous year. They have inspected the premises and estimated the sales. The assessee declared that he had no bank account at that time and it was found that he had accounts by the I.T. authorities. The workshops were inspected several times and it was noticed that 50 per cent. of the total estimated sales of Rs. 4,50,000 could be taken as taxable sales and the rest as agricultural implements. I, therefore, determine his total turnover for 1950-51 at Rs. 4,50,000 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 2,25,000 on the above basis. The tax at the rate of 0-0-2 thereon would amount to Rs. 2,314. I order that the amount of Rs. 1,918 should be p....