1987 (12) TMI 321 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Plaintiff filed a suit for rebate under section 13(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, which was not allowed by the defendants. The defendants contended that the suit is barred under section 22 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and is barred by limitation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The central issue in this case was whether the non-payment of the rebate admissible under section 13(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 is cognizable by a civil court. Section 22 of the Orissa Act explicitly bars questioning assessment orders in court, except under specific provisions. The court analyzed the provision and concluded that the refusal to allow rebate falls under the statutory machinery provided by the Act and is not cognizable by a civil court. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not completely barred but is excluded when statutory remedies are available.

2. Section 13(8) of the Orissa Act provides for a rebate on tax payable by a dealer if paid on or before the due date. The court highlighted that the Sales Tax Officer is responsible for allowing the rebate, and it is a quasi-judicial act since it involves determining if the conditions for rebate are met. The court explained that the statutory machinery under the Act, including provisions for revision and appeal, governs the allowance of rebate, making it non-justiciable in a civil court.

3. The court addressed the argument regarding the application for rebate under section 13(8) and the applicability of section 14 of the Orissa Act. It concluded that section 13(8) creates a right to claim rebate from the tax paid, and the legislature did not intend for dealers to seek this benefit through civil litigation. The court emphasized that if the statutory machinery is not utilized, section 22 of the Orissa Act would apply, barring civil court jurisdiction.

4. The judgment discussed the principles laid down in previous decisions regarding the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters where statutory remedies are available. It emphasized that unless necessary averments are made in pleadings to show that statutory remedies are inadequate, civil courts cannot entertain suits where statutory machinery exists. The court emphasized that in this case, there was adequate statutory machinery available, making the suit non-maintainable in civil court under section 22 of the Orissa Act.

5. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, stating that the parties should bear their own costs. The judgment reaffirmed that the statutory remedies provided under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 govern matters related to rebate claims, and civil courts do not have jurisdiction over such issues due to the specific bar under section 22 of the Act.