Case: SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. M/S. TODAY HOMES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ETC

rights on a class of citizens, should be complete codes by themselves. With that object in view, forums were created under the Acts themselves where grievances could be entertained on behalf of the persons aggrieved (Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161 ). 11. Wherever a right or liability, not pre-existing in common law is created by a statute and that statute itself provides a machinery for enforcement of such right or liability, both the right/liability and the remedy having been created uno flatu and a finality is intended to the result of the statutory proceedings, then, even in the absence of an exclusionary provision the jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred (Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava (Dead) By LRs v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 681 ). 12. We find that a liability for payment of tax is created by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Further, a remedy by way of an appeal against an order of assessment, before an appropriate forum or authority, has been provided by the same statute. 13. As to various issues on the correctness of a return itself, or whether or not a return is correct; whether or not transactions which are not mentioned in the return, but about which the appropriate authority has knowledge, fall within the mischief of the charging section; what is the true or real extent of the transactions which are assessable; all these and other allied questions have to be determined by the appropriate authorities themselves. An assessment, based even on an erroneous finding about the character of the transaction, is an assessment made well within jurisdiction and cannot be said to be outside the purview of the Act (Kamala Mills Ltd v. State of Bombay (1966) 1 SCR 64 ). In a case arising out of the Madras General Sales T ax Act, this Court observed that the expression ?any assessment made under this act? is wide enough to cover all assessments made by the appropriate authority under the Act, whether the said assessments are correct or not. (Firm of Illuri Subbaya Chetty and Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 322 ) If the appropriate authority has been given the jurisdiction to determine the nature of the transaction and proceed to levy a tax in accordance with its decision, even if such issue is erroneously determined by the authority, the tax levied by it in accordance with its decision cannot be said to be ‘without jurisdiction?. See (Kamla Mills - supra). 14. Applying the criteria mentioned in Dhulabhai (supra), we are of the opinion that the Civil Court?s jurisdiction is impliedly barred for the following reasons:(i) There is no pre-existing liability of tax under Common Law. The liability has been created by Delhi Municipal Corporation Act along with a remedy by way of an appeal to the Municipal T axation Tribunal. Necessarily, where a party aggrieved by the decision of the authorities has to resort to the remedy provided under the Statute, civil courts? jurisdiction is barred. See (In Firm Seth Radha Kishan v. Administrator, Municipal Committee, Ludhiana AIR 1963 SC 1547 , Firm of Illury Subbayya and In Ram Swarup and Ors. v. Shikar Chand AIR 1966 SC 893. (ii) Section 171 of the Act gives finality to orders passed by Municipal T axation Tribunal, which shows the intendment of the legislature to exclude jurisdiction of civil courts. (iii) The remedy provided by Section 169 of the Act is an adequate and effective remedy. We are not in agreement with the High Court that an appeal provided by the Statute against orders of assessments, containing an ‘onerous? pre-condition of deposit of the entire amount in dispute, is not an effective remedy.15. We seek support for these views from a judgement of this Court in Srikant K. Jituri v. Corporation of the City of Belgaum (1994) 6 SCC 572. The question that arose for consideration of this Court in the said judgment was regarding the jurisdiction the civil courts being barred by Rule 25 contained in Part-I of Schedule-III of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Resolving the dispute about the maintainability of a civil suit against the order passed by the revisional authority, this Court held that the suit was not maintainable. In the said case, the submission on behalf of the Assessee was that the right to second appeal to the District Court as per the provisions of the Act was coupled with an onerous condition i.e. deposit of the entire amount of property tax. Hence, it was pleaded that the remedy provided under the Act was not adequate. This Court rejected the said submission by holding that the alternate remedy provided by a statute not being an adequate or efficacious remedy, is not a ground for maintaining a civil suit. However, this Court was of the opinion that a Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable if the remedy provided in the statute is not efficacious. 16. We have examined the plaint filed by the Respondents carefully. We do not see any allegation made regarding the violation of any provisions of the statute. There is also no pleading with regard to non-compliance of any fundamental provisions of the statute. It is settled law that jurisdiction of the civil courts cannot be completely taken away in spite of either an express or implied bar. The civil courts shall have jurisdiction to examine a matter in which there is an allegation of non-compliance of the provisions of the statute or any of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. A plain reading of the plaint would suggest that the order impugned in the suit is at the most an erroneous order. No jurisdictional error is pleaded in the plaint. Therefore, the question of maintainability of the suit does not arise. In the absence of any pleadings in the plaint, the High Court ought not to have remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act would show that there is no express bar on the jurisdiction of Courts.We find that a liability for payment of tax is created by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Further, a remedy by way of an appeal against an order of assessment, before an appropriate forum or authority, has been provided by the same statute.Applying the criteria mentioned in Dhulabhai (supra), we are of the opinion that the Civil Court?s jurisdiction is impliedly barred for the followingThere is no pre-existing liability of tax under Common Law. The liability has been created by Delhi Municipal Corporation Act along with a remedy by way of an appeal to the Municipal T axation Tribunal. Necessarily, where a party aggrieved by the decision of the authorities has to resort to the remedy provided under the Statute, civil courts? jurisdiction is barred. See (In Firm Seth Radha Kishan v. Administrator, Municipal Committee, Ludhiana AIR 1963 SC 1547  , Firm of Illury Subbayya and In Ram Swarup and Ors. v. Shikar Chand AIR 1966 SCSection 171 of the Act gives finality to orders passed by Municipal T axation Tribunal, which shows the intendment of the legislature to exclude jurisdiction of civilThe remedy provided by Section 169 of the Act is an adequate and effective remedy. We are not in agreement with the High Court that an appeal provided by the Statute against orders of assessments, containing an ‘onerous? pre-condition of deposit of the entire amount in dispute, is not an effective remedy.We have examined the plaint filed by the Respondents carefully. We do not see any allegation made regarding the violation of any provisions of the statute. There is also no pleading with regard to non-compliance of any fundamental provisions of the statute. It is settled law that jurisdiction of the civil courts cannot be completely taken away in spite of either an express or implied bar. The civil courts shall have jurisdiction to examine a matter in which there is an allegation of non-compliance of the provisions of the statute or any of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. A plain reading of the plaint would suggest that the order impugned in the suit is at the most an erroneous order. No jurisdictional error is pleaded in the plaint. Therefore, the question of maintainability of the suit does not arise. In the absence of any pleadings in the plaint, the High Court ought not to have remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge.