RAJAB ALI PIRANI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant instituted a suit against the Government of Andhra Pradesh, through the Chief Secretary (O.S. No. 88/1 of 1956) before the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for the recovery of certain amounts from the sales tax department. It was stated that the plaintiff was a registered partnership firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of agriculture implements. For the year 1950-51 the Sales Tax Officer (C) Circle, Secunderabad, had wrongfully levied a tax of Rs. 2,344 and for the subsequent year a sum of Rs. 5,208. The assessments were ex parte and though the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, it was dismissed without going into the merits of the case. A revision was filed and even there the appellant was unsuccessful. Later he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution; but the High Court without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the plaintiff-appellant had an alternative remedy by way of a regular suit. Later on, application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed and a special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court also met with the same fate. It was finally rejected on 3rd October, 1955. The appellant was therefore, obliged to file a suit as the assessment for the years mentioned was arbitrary, wrong and baseless. It was further urged that the authorities had no jurisdiction and the assessment was made ex parte. The appellant, being a dealer in agricultural implements from scrap iron, was exempt from the payment of the sales tax in accordance with section 2(f) of item 29 of Schedule I under the Act.

(2.) IT was contented on behalf of the defendant-respondent that the appellant was a dealer in goods or articles manufactured out of iron and steel. His claim that he was only a dealer in agricultural implements from scrap iron was not correct. The tax for the year 1951-52 had not been paid by the appellant and accordingly as he had failed to furnish the statements and produce account books, the Sales Tax Authorities had assessed to the best of their judgment. It was further urged that the suit was time-barred under section 24 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act which was the law applicable at the relevant period. A rejoinder was filed reiterating the position taken by the appellant in the plaint. On these pleadings the learned trial Judge framed as many as nine issues and after examining the plaintiff-appellant and the Sales Tax Officer as D.W. 1 and marking some documents, dismissed the suit of the appellant with costs. The appeal is directed against this judgment.

(3.) THE tax was admittedly levied on 13th February, 1951, and the suit was instituted on 11th June, 1955. Therefore, it could not be, according to the section, within the prescribed limit of six months. The learned counsel for the appellant however urged that under section 14 of the Limitation Act, the appellant is entitled to compute the period spent by him in proceeding in good faith in writ petition against the order of the Sales Tax Authorities. Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides :