IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 AS.No. 518 of 2000(C) --------------------- OS.835/1993 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE - REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, RR, KODUNGALLUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDATHIRUTHY, KODUNGALLUR. 4. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THRISSUR. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------- 1. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 29, S/O.THAYYIL KANNAN, CHOOLUR DESOM, CHENDRAPPINNY VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.( D I E D)- *LRS IMPLEADED: *ADDL.R2 TO R4 IMPLEADED: R2. SMT. C.V. BINU (WIFE), AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.VASUDEVAN, CHIRAYATH VEEDU, GANESAMANGALAM, VADANAPPILLY POST, PIN - 660 614, THRISSUR. Kss ..2/- ...2.... A.S.NO.518/2000 R3. T.M.ACHUTH (SON) AGED 13 YEARS, CHIRAYATH VEEDU, GANESAMANGALAM, VADANAPPILLY POST, PIN 660 614, THRISSUR. R4. T.M.ABHIRAM (SON), AGED 10 YEARS, CHIRAYATH VEEDU, GANESAMANGALAM, VADANAPPILLY POST, PIN 660 614, THRISSUR. (*ADDL.R2 TO R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R1 AS PER ORDER DTD. 20/05/2010 IN I.A.NO.2133/2008) R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.518 OF 2000 ............................................. Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Thrissur in O.S.No.835/1993. The suit is one for an injunction. The plaintiff was conducting a small scale industrial unit. The Government permitted him sales tax exemption for an amount of Rs.1,05,092. But the sales tax authorities directed him to remit an amount of Rs.76,666. As the amount was not paid, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. It is to stall the same as well as the very assessment, the suit was filed. 2. The defendants would contend that the plaintiff was assessed tax of Rs.76,666 for the period 1986-87. There is absolute bar to entertain a suit of this nature. The trial court on analysis of the materials has granted a declaration that the defendants have no right to collect the sales tax and an order of injunction was also granted. 3. I am afraid that the said approach is totally erroneous. When tax is assessed under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, remedies are provided under the very same : 2 : A.S.NO.518 OF 2000 statute for redressal of the grievance and a civil court is totally incompetent to entertain a suit to set aside the order of assessment. Such an order only can be challenged in appeal and a civil remedy resorted to is incompetent in law. It does no confer any power on civil court to entertain a suit of that nature. 4. Therefore the suit is itself misconceived and the trial court should not have entertained the same. The appropriate remedy for the party was to move an appeal before the appellate forum and obtain necessary orders including order of stay. But it is not done. As the suit is not maintainable, it has to be held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court are incorrect and therefore the same are set aside and the suit is dismissed. But I make it clear that if the statutory remedy is to be pursued, an opportunity be given to file an appeal and the authority may consider the question of condoning the delay taking into consideration the aspect of proceeding in a wrongful form as well. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : A.S.NO.518 OF 2000 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................ A.S.NO.518 OF 2000 ........................................ 20th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T