Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.19 seconds)Valli Ammal vs The Corporation Of Madras on 8 October, 1912
State of Bombay v. Adamjee and Valli Ammal v. Corporation of Madras (1912) 23 M.L.J. 531 : I.L.R. 38 Mad. 41. Section 18-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act withdraws from the purview of the civil Courts suits for setting aside or modifying assessments made under the said Act.
Raleigh Investment Co., Ltd. vs Governor-General In Council. on 9 April, 1943
4. The plaint states that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and ultra vires and not sustainable on the merits of the case, as also the orders of the Sales Tax Officers. This cannot be agitated in a civil Court and the decision of the Privy Council in Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. v. Governor General in Council (1947) 2 M.L.J. 16 : (1947) F.L.J. 45 : 1947 F.C.R. 59(P.C.), furnishes the answer. The Judicial Committee held that an assessment made under the machinery provided by the Act is not a nullity, like an order of Court lacking jurisdiction. Reliance of such a provision is not an excess of jurisdiction, but a mistake of law made in the course of its exercise, and the suit is in truth directed exclusively to set aside or modify "an assessment made under the Act" and hence it is not maintainable. Their Lordships further pointed out that the circumstances that the assessing officer had taken into account an ultra vires provision of the Act is, in this view, immaterial in determining whether the assessment is made under the Act. The phrase describes the provenance of the assessment and does not relate to its accuracy in point of law. The use of the machinery provided by the Act, not the result of that use, is the test. It is apparent that where the form of prayer did not use the very words but the substance is clear that a modification or setting aside the assessment is sought for, the plaintiff-assessee has to seek the remedy provided under Section 11 and 12 to 12-D of the Act, which is a self-contained Act and prescribes a special machinery for the redress of the grievance. Therefore, the declaration sought for in this case cannot be regarded as having any relevancy except as leading up to the claim for repayment. Therefore, the learned advocate for the appellant has not succeeded in taking this case out of the purview of the hierarchy of tribunals constituted for this purpose under the Madras General Sales Tax Act which is a self-contained and comprehensive legislation which enables an assessee to question the assessment imposed on him.
The Public Prosecutor vs V.M. Ramalingam Pillai on 2 April, 1958
Hence a person who is dissatisfied with the assessment and seeks to set it aside or modify cannot go before the civil Court; but it will be open to him to raise before the Civil Court only these pleas which these authorities under the Act are precluded from entertaining; Public Prosecutor v. Ramalingam Pillai (1958) 2 M.L.J. 243.
Vedulapalli Satyanarayana Murhty & ... vs State Of Madras on 31 March, 1955
In Vedupalli Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of Madras (1955) 6 S.T.C. 405, it was held that if the sales fell within Article 286(2) they would be liable to tax under the Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950, of the President made thereunder.
Article 282 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Bombay vs Adamjee Hajee Dawood And Co. on 1 March, 1951
State of Bombay v. Adamjee and Valli Ammal v. Corporation of Madras (1912) 23 M.L.J. 531 : I.L.R. 38 Mad. 41. Section 18-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act withdraws from the purview of the civil Courts suits for setting aside or modifying assessments made under the said Act.