- (1.) THIS is an appeal under Order 47, rule 1 (u) of the Code of civil Procedure, by the defendant against the order of remand, dated 18-7-1970, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil appeal No. 27-A of 1969, arising out of the decree, dated 24-12-1968, passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class II, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 21-A of 1968.
(2.) THE respondent firm was assessed to sales-tax at Rs. 3,400/-for the period from 9-11-1961 to 28-10-1962, as per the order of assessment, dated 24-10-1963. The firm had paid the advance tax of Rs. 204. 32 paise and was directed to deposit the balance of Rs. 3,295 6 8 paise. The firm, after serving a notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, filed the present suit for a declaration that the order passed by the Sales-tax Officer was null and void and the plaintiff also claimed an injunction restraining the Sales-tax authorities from recovering the balance of the amount. The suit was filed on 20-3-1968. At this stage it is relevant to note the plaint allegations with reference to the alleged illegality committed by the Sales-tax Officer. Para 3 of the plaint is as follows : "the Sales Tax Department has, however, jurisdiction to assess only such taxes and penalties as are provided under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder after the specified officer having jurisdiction has served the assessee with a proper notice giving him at least 30 days to comply with the directions in the notice or to show cause against the proposed action against him, as entered in the notice, as contemplated by Rules 32/33 under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. " Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the notice was not a proper notice as it did not give 30 days' period to the assessee. In this connection it is pertinent to note that reference to rule 32 is inappropriate. It is in fact rule 33, which prior to its amendment on 10-12-1964, provided a period of 15 days for the assessee to appear and submit his return. It was with effect from 10-12-1964 that rule 33 was amended providing for a period of 30 days. Therefore, it was not the petitioner's grievance that no notice had been issued to the firm at all as required by the unamended rule 33. But the allegation was that the notice was not proper as it did not give 30 days' period to the assessee. This aspect will be relevant to decide the question of jurisdiction of the civil Court to interfere with the decision of a Special Tribunal.
(3.) THE appellant's defence was that a notice had been given giving 15 days' time to the assessee and that such a notice had been served on the firm on 10-6-1963 and the date of hearing fixed before the Assessing Authority was 27-6-1963. It appears that there were some intermediate hearings and on some hearings at least, the representative of the firm appeared before the Sales tax Officer and ultimately, the order of assessment was passed on 24-10-1963.;