The Case of Dhulabhai and Others vs the State of Madhya Pradesh (1969)

The jurisdictional question of civil courts to try all matters until they are banned and the illegal levy of tax on the tobacco sellers in Madhya Bharat are addressed in the case of dhulabhai and others vs the state of madhya Pradesh (1969). It is still regarded as a constitutional bench decision because of the thorough logic and standards it lays out for determining a civil court’s jurisdiction. The appellants contested the assessment provisions in court, arguing that they were excessively broad, and they sought a reimbursement for the taxes that had been withheld from them in accordance with the aforementioned notice.

It was decided that tribunals established under the Act could not hear cases challenging specific Act sections as being excessively broad. The High Court is not permitted to decide that issue by reviewing or citing the Tribunals’ ruling. The case primarily clarifies section 9 of the code of civil procedure, 1908, which gives the courts the authority to hear any civil claim, absent a prohibition. The Supreme Court recently upheld this decision in the 2019 case of M. Hariharasudhan v. R. Karmegam.

dhulabhai and others vs the state of madhya pradesh Case Facts

• Dhulabhai, the appellant, is a tobacco trader who either bought tobacco locally or imported it from other states to sell for a variety of purposes, particularly in Ujjain, such as eating, smoking, and creating bidis.
• Dealers are subject to taxes under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, of 1950, for the supply and sale of products. The tax rates are outlined in Section 3 of the Act; dealers must pay 5,000 rupees for sales that surpass those of the importer as well as manufacturer and 20,000 rupees for other situations.
• The government may designate the point of sale for tax payment and alter tax rates by notifying changes in the tax code, according to Section 5 of the Act. These notices were used by the government to impose various levies on tobacco goods.
• Due to their exemption from the tax, some vendors were able to charge the same price for tobacco as others who were subject to the tax. In Madhya Pradesh, on the other hand, where the government collected taxes from appellants in various quarters and quantities, no taxes were levied on the tobacco trade.
• In an attempt to recover the tax money, the appellants brought a civil lawsuit under section 80 of the civil procedure code, 1908. They claimed that the tax collection was unlawful and in violation of the Indian Constitution’s provisions ensuring the freedom of trade and commerce, Articles 301 and 304(a).

dhulabhai and others vs the state of madhya pradesh Issues

• The Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh case raised five major issues:
• Whether the non-uniform imposition of taxes on importers as well as manufacturers is permitted by Articles 301 and 304(a) of the Indian Constitution;
• the validity of the aforementioned civil litigation in accordance with Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, section 17;
• Whether the taxing authorities’ jurisdiction also extends to determine the nature or character of the monetary proceedings.
• Whether the High Court may use its writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the indian constitution to award remedy, or if the person who has been aggrieved by the civil complaint must get it.
• Whether the Limitation Act 1963 defense may be taken into consideration.

Contentions by the Parties

Appellant:

• section 9 of the civil procedure code (CPC) was invoked by the appellant in Dhulabhai and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh to support their claim that the court has jurisdiction to hear any civil complaint absent an express or implicit bar. They questioned whether it is expressly forbidden from being tried under Section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, primarily deals with tax collection.
• In Dhulabhai and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant cited Article 301 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to free trade and commerce, and claimed that the levying of taxes went against this provision.
• The petitioner cited earlier instances in which the courts had decided to reimburse taxes that were incorrectly collected, such as State of Tripura v. Province of East Bengal and Bhailal Bhai Gokal Bhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh. They contended that Section 21 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act compels the authorities to return the tax revenue.

Respondent:

• Sections 3 and 5 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, which give the government the authority to levy taxes on sales and set tax rates through announcements, were used by the respondent to justify the application of the tax.
• The respondent cited the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act’s Section 17, which forbids the court from contesting an assessment rendered in accordance with the Act. They contended that the statute’s structure forbade the court from ruling on the legality of tax imposition.

dhulabhai and others vs the state of madhya Pradesh: Observation by the Court

• The Supreme Court noted that while Article 301 of the COI ensures free trade, the government’s tax notifications were invalidated because they impose restrictions on manufacturers and importers, so limiting trade and commerce.
• Provisions for reviews, revisions, appeals, rectifications, and recommendations to the High Court are included in the MBST Act.
• On the other hand, Section 17 of the MBST prohibits the tax authorities from assessing the parties and the levied taxes in court.
• As a result, the High Court’s order was dismissed, and actions and appeals were permitted.
• The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that civil courts have the authority to hear matters until they are specifically prohibited by statute after consulting a number of decisions and acts.
• The court established certain rules for when a civil court may draw conclusions.
• The Supreme Court ruled that a writ filed within three years after the tax’s installation is subject to trial by the High Court; if filed beyond that time, a civil court may seek relief.

dhulabhai and others vs the state of madhya pradesh Judgment

• The court took into account a number of related decisions, including Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. v. Governor-General Council, while making its decision. Nevertheless, the court noted that each case had some official backing, so it declined to get involved any more.
• The court went on to say that the statute creates default and tax payment remedies in situations where there is a requirement to follow the law. It is therefore permissible to adhere to the process used by the civil courts.
• In conclusion, the court decided that the refund would only be handled if the writ petition was submitted with the High Court within three years; if the petition was not filed within that timeframe, there would be no return.
• Sections 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and section 67 of the Indian Income Tax Act forbade the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction in the Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. v. Governor-General in Council case.
• In addition, the court upheld the aforementioned ruling in KS Venkataraman and Co. v. State of Madras, holding that the High Court possesses the authority to scrutinize the provisions outlined in any Act in order to determine its sufficiency.
• Decisions were said to be based on a number of provisions. The decisions rendered here lacked explicit restrictions that would have eliminated the civil court’s jurisdiction because they were covered by numerous Acts. Furthermore, there was insufficient protocol in place to bring these concerns to the appropriate authorities.
• After analyzing the Indian Income Tax Act, the judges concluded that all authorities are subject to the statute and must carry out their responsibilities in accordance with it, regardless of their line of activity. Because of this, the authorities’ decision to collect taxes cannot be reversed, and as a result, the decision favoured the authorities that imposed taxes.

The appellants, tobacco dealers, contested the application of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950’s sales tax on tobacco products in the case of Dhulabhai and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants contended that Article 301 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to free trade and commerce, was broken by the levy. They also questioned the High Court’s authority to consider the matter.

Sections 3 and 5 of the Act were used by the respondent, the State of Madhya Pradesh, to justify the imposition of taxes. The court decided that unless specifically prohibited by statute, civil courts may intervene in tax cases. It also decided that a writ petition for a tax refund submitted within three years would be taken into consideration.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf