K.SUBBARAO, J.

(1) THIS appeal raises the question whether a suit would lie in a civil court claiming refund of the terminal tax collected by a municipality under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (Punjab Act III of 1911), hereinafter called the Act.

(2) THE appellant is alleged to be a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It carries on business within the limits of the Ludhiana Municipality. It imported Sambhar salt into the octroi limits of the Ludhiana Municipality. The Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, imposed terminal tax on the said salt and the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 5,893.70 towards the said tax between 24/10/1947 and 8/12/1947. Under the Punjab government Notification No. 26463, dated 21/07/1932, terminal tax was payable under item 68 of the Schedule attached to the said Notification at the rate of 3 pies per maund in respect of salt common, and under item 69 at the rate of As./10.00 per maund in respect of salt of all kinds other than common salt. The Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, collected terminal tax on the Sambhar salt at the higher rate under item 69 of the Schedule on the ground that it did not fall under item 68 of the Schedule. The appellant filed a suit against the respondent in the Civil court, Ludhiana, claiming refund of the said amount with interest. The respondent, inter alia, contended that Sambhar salt was not common salt and the Civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Senior Subordinate judge, Ludhiana, held that Sambhar salt was common salt within the meaning of item 68 of the Schedule, that the imposition of tax on it by the respondent under item 69 of the Schedule was illegal and that, therefore, the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On appeal, the High court of Punjab proceeded on the assumption that Sambhar salt was salt common, but held that, even so, the Civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the Act provided for a remedy by way of appeal against the wrong orders of the authorities thereunder. It further held that, in any view, the suit was premature as the appellant should have pursued his remedies under the Act before coming to the Civil court. In the result, the decree of the Subordinate judge was set aside and the suit was dismissed. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant by way of certificate issued by the High court.

(3) MR. Varma, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the respondent has no power to impose terminal tax on salt common under item 69 of the Schedule to the said Notification and therefore the tax having been imposed contrary to the provisions of the Act, the Civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(4) ON the other hand, Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent, argues that the respondent has power to impose terminal tax on common salt under the provisions of the Act, that the imposition of tax under a wrong entry could be rectified only in the manner prescribed by the Act and that the Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the refund of tax collected when a specific remedy is available under the Act.

(5) IT would be convenient at the outset to notice the relevant provisions of the Act. Under s. 61 (2) the Municipal Committee has power to impose, with the previous sanction of the State government, any tax which the State Legislature has power to impose in the State, subject to any general or special orders which the State government may make in that behalf. The State government issued the Notification No. 26463 dated 24/07/1932 to come into force from 1/11/1932 empowering the Municipal Committee to impose terminal tax at the rates shown in Col. 3 of the Schedule attached thereto upon the articles mentioned in Col. 2 thereof which are imported into or exported out of the municipal limits by rail or by road. The relevant items are items 68 and 69. Item 63 is `salt common` and the rate prescribed is 3