9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned levies. 2. Jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain the suit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Impugned Levies: The primary issue in this case was whether the levies imposed on the respondent company were valid. The respondent company, owner of the Ramnagar colliery, iron, and steel factories, contested the valuation of coal supplied to its factories for the purpose of computing profits under the Bengal Cess Act, 1880, and the Bengal Primary Education Act, 1930. The respondent argued that the coal supplied to its factories should not be considered a sale, and thus, no profit was generated from such supplies. The assessing authorities rejected the respondent's returns and valued the coal at the control rate of Rs. 12/8/- per ton, leading to a demand for cess payments. The Supreme Court referred to the precedent set in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar, where it was held that profits derived from mining operations could be disintegrated from the total profits of the enterprise, even if the raw material was not sold but used in manufacturing finished products. The Court concluded that the assessing authority was justified in considering the value of coal supplied to the respondent's factories in computing the profits of the colliery. The Court rejected the respondent's argument, emphasizing that the principle of disintegration of profits applied irrespective of whether the raw material was iron ore or coal. 2. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to Entertain the Suit: The second issue was whether civil courts had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent company for a refund of the cess paid under protest. The respondent contended that the computation of net profits by the assessing authority was incorrect and should be challenged in civil court. The Supreme Court held that the mode of computation of net profits is a matter for the assessing authorities, except where the computation violates any provision of law. The Court emphasized that the respondent should have followed the procedure prescribed in the Act to rectify any mistakes in computation. The Court referred to Section 102 of the Act, which provides finality to the decisions of the assessing authorities and excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters. The Court also cited the principle that where a statute provides a special remedy, the aggrieved party must adopt that remedy and cannot resort to civil courts. The Court referred to the decision in Dhulabhai and Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., which laid down that civil courts' jurisdiction is excluded if the statute provides an adequate remedy and gives finality to the orders of special tribunals. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned levies were valid and the civil courts did not have jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's suit. The suit brought by the respondent company was dismissed with costs throughout.
|
