TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (11) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rinciples of natural justice, it held that the third defendant ought to have examined one Syed Omer who has given the statement dated December 20, 1967 marked as Ex. B-11 and his non-examination is caught in the net of non-observance of the principles of natural justice. It also held on appreciation of the evidence, pointing out the circumstances obtained thereunder that the imposition of penalty is arbitrary. The appellate court held that the civil court is not an appellate forum against adjudicatory orders and it cannot go into the merits of the case. At the enquiry the appellant did not ask for an opportunity to examine Syed Omer and therefore the order is not violative of the principles of natural justice. Thus it allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. 3. In this Appeal, Sri Prakasam, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the approach of the appellate court is vitiated by error of law. The statement Ex. B-11 is not evidence unless Syed Omer who gave that statement is examined as a witness. Non-examination of this witness constitutes violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore the finding of the Trial Court that the adjudicatory order is violative o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or is whether or not such office is attached to particular place." The exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred but that such exclusion must either be expressed in the statute or clearly implied from a consideration of the entire provisions in the statute and the rules made thereunder. The court has to examine the scheme of the Act and the rules made thereunder to find whether the remedies provided thereunder are adequate or sufficient. Finding that such remedies are ensured under the statute is a relevant factor to be taken note of. 6.  In this case, for contravention of Rule 151(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, 'the rules') admittedly a show cause notice was issued under It Ex. A-2 and a reply was given under Ex. B-2. While the adjudication proceedings were pending, the Department came to know of certain circumstances in regard to the contravention and they recorded the statement of Syed Omer under Ex. B-11. Thereafter, a supplemental show cause notice under Ex. A-3 dated 3-7-68 was issued seeking explanation from the appellant. In reply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es to the imposition of any penalty, to the person on whom such penalty to be imposed : provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may, at the request of the person or persons concerned, be oral." 10.  It is alleged that the appellant has committed the offence of removing the tobacco from the warehouse in contravention of Rule 151 and thereby he became liable to the penalty. The procedure to enquire into those offences or penalties are to be enquired into in the matter prescribed in Rule 233A. The liability to penalty is the creature of the Act and the Rules devised its own machinery for adjudication thereof. One of the classic statement of law by Willes, J. in Wolver Ampton Wew Water Works Company case, (3) 1859 C.B. (SN) 336 that "where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it" would apply to the facts in this case. Therefore, the adjudicating authority is conferred with exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the liability and to decide the penalty to be imposed. These circumstances hold the key to the question....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n incorrect finding of fact, is nevertheless an order of assessment within the meaning of section 20 and section 20 in terms, provides that it will not be called in question in any civil court." It is held that civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 13.  A Division Bench of this court (to which I am a party) in A.P.S.E Board v. Subhadramma (5). Supra 1983 (1) A.P.L.J. 114 has considered the entire case law regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court and held : "Where the Authority or the Tribunal constituted under a particular statute has been given exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the specific matter or subject to try or decide exclusively for itself, even in such cases, the nature and character of the Tribunal constituted, the nature of jurisdiction conferred, the circumstances enumerated in the statute conferring such jurisdiction, are to be examined. If the exercise of the jurisdiction of the tribunal is dependent upon the existence of a particular state of facts, and the Tribunal or the Authority constituted assumes the existence of such state of facts and then proceeds to make an enquiry, in such an event, it is necessary to find the purpose of the sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... particular way it must be sought in that forum and in that manner, and all other forums and modes of seeking it are excluded. Construed in the light of this principle, it is clear that Sections 84 and 86 of the Municipal Act bar, by inevitable implication, the jurisdiction of the civil court where the grievance of the party relates to an assessment or the principles of the assessment under this Act is excluded." While thus laying down the law it was held that the Municipality did not commit any act outside or in abuse of the power under the Act and that the civil court, has no jurisdiction to decide the assessment on merits and the suit is barred even if the dispute raised therein relating to the assessment or the principle to be followed in making the assessment. It is held that by necessary implication the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded. 15.  The result of the above consideration leads to the following conclusions :- (1) The court has to find whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded either expressly or by necessary inference; the exclusion of the jurisdiction need not readily be assumed ; (2) Whether the liability is the creature of the statu....