SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1933 Supreme(Mad) 76

CURGENVEN
M. S. Gopalaswami Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary of State for India in Council represented by the Collector – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Curgenven, J.

1. The plaintiff, now appellant, sued to recover a sum of Rs. 6,300 from the Government in the following circumstances. In 1913 he started the Salem knitting factory and remained its proprietor until March, 1923, when he sold it to the Salem Industrials. The factory produced cotton banians and it is not disputed that its products were liable to duty under the Cotton Duties Act, II of 1896. Although the duty was payable monthly, no steps were taken to collect it until February, 1923, when the Revenue Divisional Officer called upon the plaintiff to submit a return showing the quantity and value of goods produced in the factory up to 31st December, 1922, so that the duty might be assessed and levied. The plaintiff did not answer this reference, and a further demand was made on 5th April, 1923. This also met with no response and on 11th July the Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders assessing the goods produced at the factory from its establishment up to the end of 1922 at Rs. 6,300. The plaintiff who had, as already stated, ceased to be the proprietor, paid this sum in installments under protest and filed this suit to recover it as an illegal levy. He bases his



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top