STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against a reversing order of the lower appeal Court by which it set aside an order of the Court of first instance dismissing the suit on the ground that it was barred by section 37 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) and remanded the suit for disposal according to law.

(2.) THE material facts are these. THE plaintiff is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Act. He had to pay for the period 1 November 1959 to 20 October 1960 a sum of Rs. 7, 615 as sales tax and he paid the amount in smaller sums into the State Bank which issued chalans in triplicate. One of these chalans, No. 306 dated 25 April 1960, related to a payment of Rs. 2, 382. 62. By a notice of demand dated 23 April 1964 issued under section 22 (4) (a) of the Act, the plaintiff was required to pay within 30 days a sum of Rs. 2, 300 on the ground that, upon verification from the Treasury, it was found that, only Rs. 82. 62 was deposited under the aforesaid chalan No. 306 dated 25 April 1960 and he was also intimated that, if he failed so to do, it would be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. In his reply to the notice, the plaintiff stated that he had paid the full amount of Rs. 2, 382. 62 and he was not responsible if the Treasury records were not properly maintained. THEreupon, proceedings for recovery of Rs. 2, 300 as arrears of land revenue were initiated and a notice under section 146 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was served upon the plaintiff who, in response thereto, reiterated his objection to recovery of the amount from him. Even so, without passing any order on his objection, the revenue authorities issued a warrant and attached from his possession certain movables. Following this, the plaintiff served the required statutory notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed the suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the authorities from recovering the same dues once again.

(3.) SECTION 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those of which cognizance is either expressly or by necessary implication barred. Exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil Courts is not to be readily inferred and it is now firmly established that a party seeking to oust the jurisdiction of an ordinary civil Court in regard to any class of suits has to show that the Court is not competent to try them: Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple v. Induru Pattabbirami Reddi (AIR l967 SC 78l). Where, however, the exclusion is expressly provided for, the question must be considered in the light of the statutory provision on which the plea is rested. This question was considered by the Supreme Court in Kamala Mills v. Bombay State (AIR l965 SC. 1942). Their Lordships observed: