Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2001 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2001 (5) TMI 931 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the civil court under section 62(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.
2. Challenge of notices and summons issued by the Sales Tax Department.
3. Interpretation of the judgment in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1968] 22 STC 416 (SC).
4. Application of section 62 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act in barring civil court jurisdiction.
5. Plaintiff's cause of action against defendant No. 4 for misrepresentation.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiff challenged notices and summons issued by the Sales Tax Department for recovery of sales tax arrears under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. The defendants contended that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under section 62(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, making the suit not maintainable. The trial court framed the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary issue.

2. The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in law by ruling against the plaintiff, citing the Dhulabhai case. However, the court found that the plaintiff had signed surety bonds submitted to the tax authorities, and the recovery was in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under section 62(2) of the Act to prevent indirect challenges to revenue recovery.

3. Referring to the Byford Leasing Limited case, the court reiterated that section 62 imposed a complete bar on civil court suits related to actions under the Act. The court found no jurisdictional issues with the notices and summons issued by the authorities. The plaintiff had already responded to show cause notices, leaving the matter for the authorities to decide in accordance with the law.

4. The court highlighted that the plaintiff could pursue action against defendant No. 4 for misrepresentation, but the plaintiff had not taken any action since 1985. The court upheld the trial court's decision based on the Dhulabhai case, stating that the civil court lacked jurisdiction as the plaintiff's case did not fall within the exceptions outlined in the Dhulabhai judgment.

5. Ultimately, the revision was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision and upholding the bar on civil court jurisdiction under section 62(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act. The plaintiff's petition was dismissed, emphasizing the need for actions to be taken in accordance with the law and within the statutory provisions.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates