Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1965 (4) TMI 24 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Bombay High Court was right in holding that the suit filed by the appellant, Kamala Mills Ltd., against the respondent, the State of Bombay, was incompetent?
Held that:- If the jurisdiction conferred on the appropriate authority falls under the first category, then its finding that a particular transaction is taxable under the relevant provisions of the Act would be a finding on a collateral question of fact, and it may be permissible to a party aggrieved by the said finding to contend that the tax levied on the basis of an erroneous decision about the nature of the transaction is without jurisdiction. If, however, the appropriate authority has been given jurisdiction to determine the nature of the transaction and proceed to levy a tax in accordance with its decision on the first issue, then the decision on the first issue cannot be said to be a decision on a collateral issue, and even if the said issue is erroneously determined by the appropriate authority, the tax levied by it in accordance with its decision cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.