STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JINDAL STRIPS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that craves for an answer is as to if in the facts of the present case the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try a suit filed by the respondent.

(2.) TO appreciate the said controversy the necessary facts can easily be delineated. Respondent owned a Jeep bearing registration No. MPR 6763. On 12. 10. 1976, at about 5 P. M. the Taxation Officer intercepted the vehicle and found that the driver of the Respondent was carrying 6 gas cylinders in the above-mentioned vehicle. He issued a detection memo to the driver and took the registration certificate of the vehicle into possession. The respondent was subsequently directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1250/- per annum as tax on the vehicle. Respondent filed a civil suit before the learned Subordinate Judge, District Hissar, seeking a declaration that the detection memo dated 12. 10. 1976 and the letter whereby the respondent was directed to pay goods tax were illegal and without jurisdiction. As a consequential relief, injunction was prayed to restrain the appellants from recovering the goods tax on the vehicle. It was asserted that the vehicle was never used for carrying goods on hire or reward. 2. Needless to say that the appellants contested the suit challenging the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the same. The assertions made by the respondent on facts were controverted.

(3.) LEARNED Subordinate Judge returned the findings that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The same as such was dismissed. The findings of the learned Subordinate Judge were reversed by the learned Additional Judge, Hisar on 21. 2. 1979 and it was concluded that detection memo dated 12. 10. 1976 and order dated 28. 1. 1977 are illegal and without jurisdiction. As an offshoot of these conclusions, appellants were further restrained from recovering the said tax from the respondent.