Skip to content


Katta Adinarayana and Brothers Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 245 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Mad830; (1952)2MLJ27
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantKatta Adinarayana and Brothers
RespondentThe State of Madras Represented by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary and anr.
Appellant AdvocateT.S. Narasinga Rao and ;M. Balachandrudu, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleader
DispositionApplication dismissed
Cases ReferredProvince of Madras v. Satyanarayanamurthi
Excerpt:
- .....revenue dated 14th may 1951 of the commercial tax officer, bellary, dated 9th april 1951 & of the deputy commercial tax officer, dated, 2nd march 1951. the deputy commercial tax officer assessed the petitioner for sales-tax for the year 1948-49 in a sum of rs. 2.22,490-2-9. he filed an appeal against that order to the commercial tax officer, bellary, but that appeal was dismissed, on 9th april 1951. when he filed a petition to the board of revenue that was rejected on 14th may 1951. the petitioner seeks to set aside those orders on the ground that they are illegal and contravene the provisions of the act.2. the learned government pleader raised the preliminary objection that the petitioner has other adequate and effective remedy by way of filing a suit in a civil court and therefore.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Subba Rao, J.

1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 14th May 1951 of the Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary, dated 9th April 1951 & of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, dated, 2nd March 1951. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the petitioner for sales-tax for the year 1948-49 in a sum of Rs. 2.22,490-2-9. He filed an appeal against that order to the Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary, but that appeal was dismissed, on 9th April 1951. When he filed a petition to the Board of Revenue that was rejected on 14th May 1951. The petitioner seeks to set aside those orders on the ground that they are illegal and contravene the provisions of the Act.

2. The learned Government Pleader raised the preliminary objection that the petitioner has other adequate and effective remedy by way of filing a suit in a civil court and therefore this application should be dismissed. In -- 'the Province of Madras v. Satyanarayanamurthi', : AIR1952Mad273 , Govinda Menon and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed JJ. held that the Madras General Sales-tax Act of 1939 with its subsequent amendments has not ousted the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil courts when a party is alleged to have been aggrieved by the administration of the Act, and that 'suits alleging that sales-tax was illegally levied against the plaintiffs and that excessive amounts were collected from them as sales-tax are maintainable.'

This judgment was delivered on 26th April 1951.The petitioner could have filed a suit in a civilcourt for the relief which he now seeks to obtain in this writ. As he has other effectiveremedy, this application is dismissed with costs.Advocate's fee Rs. 100.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //