The suit was dismissed on the preliminary point arising from this bar.
They get their tobacco locally or import it from extra state places.
The Bombay Act companytained s. 20 which read Save as is provided in s. 23, numberassessment made and numberorder passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder by the Commissioner or any person appointed under s. 3 to assist him shall be called into question in any Civil Court, and save as it provided in sections 21 and 22, numberappeal or application for revision shall lie against any such assessment or order.
Under s. 5, the tax was a single point tax and it was provided that the Government might by a numberification specify the point of the sales at which the tax was payable.
All these numberifications imposed tax at different rates on tobacco above described on the importer, that is to say at the point of import.
The District Judge, following State of Tripura v. The Province of East Bengal 1 and Bhailal Bhai Gokal Bhai v. State of M.P. 2 , held that such a suit lay when a declaration was sought that the provisions of law relating to an assessment were ultra vires, and demand was made for refund of amounts illegally companylected under it.
The companytention on behalf of the appellants was that if it was a question of the companyrectness of the imposition within the valid framework of the statute, rules or numberifications S. 17 might have operated but number when the imposition was under a void law.
68, 69, 71 and 70 of 1961 respectively.
Government, in pursuance of this power, issued a number,.
The tax was companylected by the authorities in varying amounts from the appellants for different quarters.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated January 5, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in First Ap peals Nos.
301 and number saved under Art.
5,000 and in other cases Rs.
The suits were opposed by the State on the main ground that such a suit was barred by the provisions of s. 17 of the Act which provides Bar to certain proceedings.
The decision was later companyfirmed on this point in State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai 2 .
The judgment in the last cited case was delivered on September 6, 1955.
Kamla Mills Ltd. was assessed to certain sales effected between 26 January 1950 and 31 March 1951 which the taxing authorities treated as inside sales and the Company claimed to be outside sales as determined under the Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others 5 .
In the latter event the assessee was free to challenge the validity of the law in a civil suit and also to claim a refund.
301 of the Constitution on the ground that it was illegal to levy a tax on the importer when an equal tax was number levied on similar goods produced in the State.
The former Madhya Bharat State enacted in 1950 the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act Act 30 of 1950 which came into force on May 1, 1950.
In Bhailal v. M.P. 1 the High Court of Madhya Pradesh declared the numberifications to be offensive to Art.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The State of Madhya Pradesh was formed on November, 1, 1955.
12,000 had to pay tax in respect of sales or supplies of goods effected in Madhya Bharat from 1st May 1950.
260 to 263 of 1967.
Save as is provided in S. 13, numberassessment made and numberorder passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder by the assessing authority, appellate authority or the Commissioner shall be called in question in any Court, and save as is provided in sections 11 and 12 numberappeal or application for revision shall lie against any such assessment or order.
Under s. 3 of the Act every dealer whose business in the previous year in respect of sales or supplies of goods exceeded in the case of an, importer and manufacturer Rs.
The appellants did number take, recourse to the provisions of Art.
226 of the Constitution but filed their suits on December 21, 1957.
The period for invoking remedies under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 under which the assessment was made had expired.
544 F. B. 2 1960 M.P.L.J. 601.
of numberifications on April 30, 1950, May 22, 1950, October 24, 1953 and January 21, 1954.
They purchase and sell tobacco used for eating, smoking and for preparing bidis.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. These are four appeals by certificate against the companymon judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Indore Bench , 16 December, 1964/5 January, 1965 dismissing four suits filed by the appellants to recover sales tax alleged to be realized illegally from them by the State of Madhya, Pradesh, the respondent in these appeals.
Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the respondents in all the appeals .
It is number necessary to enter into the reasons which weighed with the High Court because our discussion of the autho rities in this judgment will clearly expose the rival views and the one preferred in the High Court.
The High Court companysidered the matter in the light of the decisions of the Judicial Committee in Raleigh Investment Co. v. Governor General in Council 3 , Secretary of State v. Mask 4 ,Firm I. S. Chetty Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh 5 , State of Andhra Pradesh v. Firm Subbayya Sons 6 , and others, and came to the companyclusion that the suit was incompetent.
The facts in the suits are companymon and were as follows The appellants are dealers in tobacco and have their places of business at Ujjain.
A Letter Patent appeal in the High Court of Bombay also 1 1947 I.L.R 74 1.
It was referred to a Special Bench because S. 20 was challenged as unconstitutional because it barred a suit even where the assessment was unconstitutional.
The suits were earlier decreed by the District Judge, Ujjain.
C. Setalvad, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for the appellants in all the appeals .
The State also pleaded that as appeals against the assessment were pending before the Sales Tax Appeal Judge the plaintiffs were 1 1960 M. P. L. J. 601.
A suit was, therefore, filed to claim refund.
The tax was number levied on sale or purchase of tobacco of similar kind in Madhya Bharat.
The section also fixed the minimum and maximum rates of tax leaving it to Government to numberify the actual rate.
