A, Theerthgiriyar Street,Kumaraswamypet P.O.,Dharmapuri District v. Tax Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 04.04.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJAWrit Appeal No.1800 of 2001K.Damodara Menon,Partner of Guru Industries,Now Vikas Industries,No.72/26A, Theerthgiriyar Street,Kumaraswamypet P.O.,Dharmapuri District,PIN-636 701...Appellant Vs.1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.3. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri...RespondentsAppeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order ofthe learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No.5573 of 2001 dated 13.06.2001.WP.5573 of 2001 : Petition presented to this Court to issue a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent inhis proceedings Na.Ka.No.1030/85/A3 dated 5.3.2001 demanding a sum ofRs.1,37,811/- and ofter quasing the same direct the respondents to forbear from demanding only amount from the petitioner.For Appellant : Mr.K.RamachandranFor Respondents: Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, Spl.GP(Taxes) for R1 & R2 Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT(Judgment of the court was delivered byP.P.S.Janarthana Raja, J.)This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judgepassed in W.P. No.5573 of 2001 dated 13.06.2001.2.The brief facts arising out of this Writ Appeal are as under:The appellant is a partnership firm and had started its industry withfunds provided by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation ("TIIC"in short), the above mentioned third respondent. The initial borrowingwas Rs.1,00,000/- out of which more than Rs.70,000/- had been consumed byway of laying the foundation for starting the industry. In the year 1983,there was a raid by the Commercial Tax Authority and proceedings wereinitiated against the appellant. After conducting the raid, theDepartment seized all the documents as well as the machinery though thesame were still under hypothecation with the TIIC. There was also anattempt by the Revenue Authorities to bring the property to sale. Hencethe appellant filed O.S.No.290 of 1985 on the file of District MunsifCourt, Dharmapuri for declaration and injunction in respect of the actioninitiated by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Dharmapuri, the abovementioned first respondent, against the properties of the appellant.Learned District Munsif, by his Judgment and Decree dated 19.07.1991,decreed the suit. Later, the appellant also filed E.P.No.45 of 1999 inO.S. No.290 of 1985 against the first respondent under Order 21 Rule IIC.P.C. for executing the decree by initiating proceedings under theContempts of Court Act for wilful disobedience of the Court's order.Learned District Munsif heard the matter and dismissed the petitionholding that there was no violation of the Court judgment. In view of thedismissal of E.P.No.45 of 1999, the second respondent had issued noticedated 05.03.2001 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,811/-.The said notice dated 05.03.2001 made by the second respondent waschallenged by the appellant by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.5573 of2001 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 13.06.2001,dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned SingleJudge, the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal.3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that theappellant had obtained a decree in Civil Court restraining the respondentsfrom proceeding against the property and the said decree had become finaland conclusive and also the respondents had not filed any appeal. Hence,no proceeding of attachment for realisation of sales tax arrears can becontinued against the appellant and the learned Single Judge ought to havegranted relief. 4.Learned Special Govt. Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the Revenue,submitted that there is a clear provision under Section 51 of the Act,barring the Civil Court to grant injunction in respect of any action takenin pursuance of the provisions of the Act and hence the Civil Court has no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ jurisdiction to entertain a suit and the learned Single Judge rightlyrejected the contention of the appellant. 5.Heard the counsel. Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu General SalesTax Act reads as follows:"51. Bar of suits and proceedings to set aside ormodify assessment except as provided in this Act - (a)No suit or proceedings shall, except as expresslyprovided under this Act be instituted in any court toset aside or modify any assessment made under this Act.(b) No injunction shall be granted by any court inrespect of any assessment made, or to be made, or inrespect of any action taken, or to be taken, inpursuance of any of the provisions of this Act."From bare reading of the above provision, it is clear that no suit orproceedings can be initiated in any Civil Court to set aside or modify anyassessment made under the Act. Further it is stated that no injunctioncan be granted by any Civil Court in respect of any assessment made, or tobe made, or in respect of any action taken, or to be taken, in pursuanceof any of the provisions of this Act. The Act provides complete machineryfor adjudication as well as recovery and when there is a specific bar, theappellant has no right to file a suit in the Civil Court and the CivilCourt has no jurisdiction to entertain and grant any injunction. The onlyremedy open to the assessee is to avail the remedies as contemplated underthe provisions of the Act. The effect of Section 51 of the Act is that nosuit can be brought in any Civil Court to set aside or modify or grant anyinjunction in respect of any assessment or any action taken in pursuanceof the provisions of the Act. Sales tax is complete code by itself and itprovides for complete assessment, raising demand and Recovery Proceedings.Section 51 of the Act prohibits a Civil Court to grant injunction inrespect of any action taken in pursuance of the provisions of the Act.Therefore the decree of the Civil Court cannot be put in defence or sealedagainst the coersive or Recovery Proceedings initiated under the Act. Wedo not find any error or legal infirmity in the order of the Single Judgeand the reasons given by the Single Judge are based on valid materials andevidence. Hence the order of the Single Judge is in accordance with lawand the same does not require interference. 6.Under the circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. kmSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.3. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.+1 cc to Mr.K.Ramachandran, Advocate Sr.No.21397.+1 cc to M/s.Aiyar & Dolia, Advocate sr.No.21848.+1 cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.21677.PV(Co)dcp/24.4.07 Writ Appeal No.1800 of 2001