RSA No.2749 of 1987 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2749 of 1987 Date of Decision: 18.3.2010 State of Punjab & others ...Appellants Versus Libra Bus Service Private Ltd. .....Respondent 1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes. 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the State-appellants. Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This is the second appeal filed by the State-appellants assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.2.1984 passed by the learned trial Court as well as judgment and decree dated 22.4.1987 passed by the First Appellate Court/Additional District Judge II, Sangrur. Both the Courts below have decree the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein declaring the plaintiff that he is not owner of the vehicles in question, hence, not liable to pay any tax imposed on the vehicles and further quashing the notice dated 30.1.1984 issued by the District Transport Officer, Sangrur defendant No.2 directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.31,200/- as tax qua the vehicles in dispute. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff has filed civil suit for declaration qua the certain vehicles mentioned in the plaint RSA No.2749 of 1987 2 seeking declaration that plaintiff is not the owner of the vehicles and is not liable to pay any tax thereon and notice issued by the District Transport Officer to the plaintiff to pay sum of Rs.31,200/- as tax is illegal and void. 3. Suit was contested by the defendant on various grounds including the ground of maintainability of suit in Civil Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab has argued that findings recorded by both the Courts below, on issue No.3, are illegal and are against the Section 14 of Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act read with Section 9 CPC. He further argued that issue No.3 framed by the learned trial Court be treated as substantial question of law. 6. I, therefore, formulate substantial question of law as under (i) As to whether Civil Suit challenging demand notice demanding the tax under Punjab Motor Vehicles and Taxation Act, is maintainable in in a Civil Court in view of Section 14 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 9 CPC. Section 14 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Act is being reproduced as under:- “Bar to jurisdiction of civil and criminal courts in matters of taxation.- The liability of a person pay the tax or penalty shall not be determined or questioned in any other manner or by any other authority than is provided in this Act or in rules made thereunder, and no prosecution, suit of other proceeding shall lie against any Government Officer for anything in good faith done or RSA No.2749 of 1987 3 intended to be done under this Act.” 7. From the perusal of the Section 14 of Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act it can safely be said that no suit shall lie for the determination and questioning of any tax liability under the Act. 8. Section 9 CPC reads as under:- “Courts to try all civil suits unless bared.- The Courts shall (subject to he provision herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil mature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.” 7. From the perusal of the Section 9 CPC, I am of the opinion that no civil suit shall lie if jurisdiction of the Civil Court is either impliedly or specifically barred. Since question of imposition of tax under the Act or liability to make payment of the tax under the Act cannot be challenged in the civil Court, hence, Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly in favour of appellant. 8. In view of the above, judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below cannot be sustained. 9. Appeal is allowed. Judgments passed by the learned Courts below are set aside. Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed being not maintainable in the Civil Court. However, it is made clear that plaintiff can seek remedy before the appropriate forum, if so advised. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 18.3.2010 sharmila