Dhulabhai v. State of M.P.

Case Name : Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., AIR 1969 SC 78.

Author : Pallabi Paul

CITATION

AIR 1996 P&H 107.

BENCH

HIDAYATULLAH,M. (CJ),BACHAWAT, R.S.VAIDYIALINGAM,C.A ,HEGDE,K.S. ,GROVER, A.N.

INTRODUCTION

This case was all about the case where the appellants were Tobacco dealers and we’re having these business in Ujjain ,a dispute took place with regards to.their business which are discussed here.

FACTS

Appellants are Tobacco dealers, the appellants are tobacco dealers and have their business places in Ujjain. They buy and sell tobacco which is used to eat, smoke and prepare bidis.

They get their tobacco locally or import it from places outside of the province. In 1950 the former Madhya Bharat State enacted the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act The: tax was a single point tax and it was provided that, by notification, the Government could determine the point of sale at which the tax was due.

The section also set minimum and maximum tax rates leaving it to Government to inform the actual rate. Government released a number, in pursuit of this power. In Madhya Bharat was not imposed on the selling or purchase of similar kind of tobacco.

The tax was received by the authorities for various sections in equal quantities from the appellants. We don’t concern ourselves with the numbers. The appellants had been serving notices under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and lodged the present refund proceedings on the basis that the tax was unlawfully collected.

JUDGMENT

Different principles were laid down by the Court, The suits were sustainable.

An inquiry into the different views expressed in the judgments of this Court reveals that an exclusion from the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be readily concluded unless the following conditions apply, where the law provides finality to the orders of the special courts, the jurisdiction of the civil court must be retained.

However, this provision does not preclude cases in which the rules of the particular Act have not been complied with or in which the legislative tribunal has not acted in compliance with the basic principles of the judicial procedure.