TMI Blog1956 (3) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed an excise duty of two annas per pound on cured betel-nuts produced on and after 1st April, 1944. The first plaintiff a dealer in arecanuts had already stocked-cured nuts by the end of March, 1944, which could not be brought within the taxation under the Finance Act of 1944. The Sub-Inspector of Central Excise checked the pre-excise stock, i.e., the goods which the first plaintiff had stocked with him before 31st March, 1944 and issued a certificate, Exhibit A-1, on 12th April, 1944, showing that the first plaintiff was in possession of arecanuts cured before 31st March, 1944 and the quantity was 16 candies 1 maund which corresponded to 9245lb. On 17th and 19th of April, 1944 and 6th May, 1944, the first plaintiff sold 7 candies, 16 maunds, 25lb., out of the pre-excise stock to one Ullal Hari Varman Nayak as per entries in Exhibit A-8 and a reference had been made to the pre-excise certificate, Exhibit A-1. Subsequently the Assistant Inspector of Excise issued a demand order, Exhibit A-2, dated 2nd December, 1944, calling upon the first plaintiff to pay excise duty of two annas per pound on 9245lb. which according to the first plaintiff was identical with the weight mentioned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Government to make rules and there-are various Sub-sections which define the purposes for which rules are to be made. Rule 7 in Chapter III relates to recovery of duty from persons who-produce or manufacture any excisable goods. Rule 9 relates to the time and manner of payment of duty and Rule 54 is with regard to submission of monthly returns by the manufacturers. There is no doubt whatever that if the goods in regard to which an excise duty of ₹ 502 was collected, were cured before 1st April, 1944, no tax can be levied on them. That question will be discussed while dealing with the second contention raised on behalf of the appellant. Section 35 relates to appeals and it is as follows: Any person deeming himself aggrieved by any decision or order passed by a Central Excise-Officer under this Act or the rules made thereunder may, within three months from the date of such decision or order, appeal therefrom to the Central Board of Revenue, or in such cases as the Central Government directs, to any Central Excise Officer not inferior in rank to an Assistant Collector, of Central Excise and empowered in that behalf by the Central Government. Such authority or officer may th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, which is to the following effect: No suit shall lie against the Central Government or against any officer of the Crown in respect of any order passed in good faith or any act in good faith done or ordered to be done under this Act. (a) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall be instituted for anything done or ordered to be done under this Act after the expiration of six months from the accrual of the cause of action or from the date of the act or order complained of. 10. The argument is put in this way : According to well-known canons of interpretation of statutes where the liability to tax is not under the common law but is created under a special statute which itself provides for an appeal then the statute must be considered as a self-contained one and the civil Courts will have no jurisdiction to entertain suits regarding such reliefs. At page 116 of Craies on Statute Law the general rule is stated thus: This general rule, when relating to the trial of new offences created by statute, was explained, by Willes, J., in Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford (1859) 6 C.B. 336 as follows: There are three class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the executive Government. It is difficult to conceive what further challenge of the order was intended to be excluded other than a challenge in the Civil Courts. 12. The learned Government Pleader on the analogy of this decision strenuously argues that when under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act an appeal is provided to the Central Board of Revenue whose decision subject to the power of revision conferred under Section 36 is final there can be no further remedy even if the taxes are illegally collected so far as the party aggrieved is concerned. 13. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents invited our attention to a decision in The Province of Madras v. Satyanarayanamurthi AIR1952Mad273 to which one of us (Govinda Menon, J.) was a party. That related to interpretation of Sections 17 and 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and the question was whether civil Courts had jurisdiction to deal with actions arising under that statute. A large body of case-law was discussed in that judgment and it is unnecessary to repeat the same here. We adhere to the view taken therein. What was decided in that judgment is that the Madras General Sales Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extends to the correction of errors apparent on the face of the record. After an elaborate discussion of all the case-law Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., has come to the conclusion that civil Courts have got jurisdiction. No doubt that case arose out of an application filed under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus but that does not make any difference whatever. We do not think that Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act deals with the same subject-matter as Sub-section (1), for the latter sub-section is very wide in its language and import and refers to suits, prosecutions or other legal proceedings in respect of anything done or ordered to be done under the Act. It may be that Sub-section (1) is intended to protect officers personally from actions but Sub-section (2) certainly contemplates other cases where relief is sought against the Government as such. That is implicit in Sub-section (2) that a right of suit at common law exists in view of the wide nature of the language used. It is unnecessary to restrict the effect of prohibition of filing of suits in respect of any act done within six months to personal rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
