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

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (6) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Apex Court in the case of DHULABHAI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER [ 1968 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT] laid down the principles to decide whether the jurisdiction of the Court is barred under Section 9 of C.P.C. and held that Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies norma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vision Petitions are filed challenging the issuance of suit summons in three original suits (viz.,) O.S.Nos.287, 285 286 of 2013 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein respectively. 3. The above said civil suits were filed in respect of original assessment orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. It is the admitted position that these assessment orders are appealable orders under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents herein did not file an appeal against the said orders; instead, civil suits were filed for a declaration that the respondents herein are entitled for exemption from Excise Duty (in O.S.No.287 of 2013 only) and also for a declaration that the Assessment Orders are Null .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mplication an aspect dealt with at some length later.... 5. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs submitted that the revision petitioners should have filed an Interlocutory Application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. to reject the plaint as barred by law, instead of filing the present civil revision petitions. In the alternative, the learned counsel also submitted that it is open to the Civil Court to frame a preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction before deciding the suit on merits. Therefore, he submitted that the present Civil Revision Petitions are not maintainable. In addition, the learned counsel for the respondents referred to Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944; in specific, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ivil Revision Petitions are premature and that the appropriate remedy is before the Civil Court to decide the issue on jurisdiction. 7. The records and oral submissions were carefully considered. 8. The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly or impliedly barred. On perusal of the Central Excise Act, it is clear that there is no express bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Civil Court. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether the jurisdiction is impliedly barred. This question is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhulabhai vs. State of Madhya Pradhesh reported in AIR 1969 SC 78(CB) laid down the princ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... prescribed by the said statute or not. (3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit. (5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he taxes which are due according to law but have not been collected and also for refunding the taxes which have been collected contrary to law, viz. Sections 11-A and 11-B and its allied provisions. Both provisions contain a uniform rule of limitation, viz., six months, with an exception in each case. Sections 11-A and 11-B are complementary to each other. To such a situation, Proposition No.3 enunciated in Kamala Mills becomes applicable, viz., where a statute creates a special right or a liability and also provides the procedure for the determination of the right or liability by the Tribunals constituted in that behalf and provides further that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the Tribunals so consti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates