HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
K. S. Venkataraman & Co. v. State of Madras
Civil Appeal No. 618 of 1963
[1966] 2 S.C.R. 229 ·
1922 Income-tax Act: sections 23, 30, 31, 33, 66, 66A(2), 67 · Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939: section 18A · Limitation Act, 1908: Article 96
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Five-judge Bench; majority 3:2 · K. Subba Rao J. · K.N. Wanchoo J. · J.C. Shah J. · S.M. Sikri J. · V. Ramaswami J.
Assessment years: Sales-tax periods 1948-49 to 1952-53; no income-tax assessment decided
01 · Facts of the case
A building contractor paid sales tax on indivisible works contracts for 1948-49 to 1952-53. After the High Court's Gannon Dunkerley ruling, it sued for refund of Rs 36,320-1-11. The courts below treated section 18A and the statutory machinery as a bar. The Supreme Court considered civil jurisdiction and limitation, not an income-tax assessment.
Source: SCR 232-238 / PDF pp.4-10
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Subba Rao J., for Wanchoo and Sikri JJ. and himself, rejected Raleigh Investment's premise that constitutional validity could be decided through the 1922 Income-tax machinery. Tax officers and the Tribunal must administer their statute; section 66's limited advisory reference and section 66A(2) appeal do not enlarge that jurisdiction. The majority treated the ultra vires works-contract levy as outside the Sales Tax Act, so section 18A did not bar suit. Shah and Ramaswami JJ. dissented on jurisdiction, though agreeing on limitation.
Source: Income-tax jurisdiction: SCR 247-252 / PDF pp.19-24; Dissent: SCR 269-278 / PDF pp.41-50
03 · Judicial decision
The appeal was allowed by majority, with a decree for the plaintiffs as prayed and costs throughout. Under Article 96 of the 1908 Limitation Act, time ran from knowledge of the mistake; the majority's recorded 5 April 1954 knowledge and 23 March 1955 suit were within three years. The constitutional validity of section 18A itself was left undecided.
Source: Limitation and relief: SCR 253 / PDF p.25; Final Court order: SCR 278 / PDF p.50
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
The appellant succeeded on its sales-tax refund claim; this was not merely a remand. The dissent's proposed dismissal was not the Court's disposition. No income-tax assessment, exemption or refund was adjudicated.
Source: SCR 278 / PDF p.50
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Distinguish an ordinary assessment error from a challenge to the validity of the enabling provision, and identify the forum's statutory jurisdiction. This historical discussion of the 1922 Act is not a blanket permission to bypass tax appeals or seek civil refunds today. Check later authorities, the applicable statute and limitation independently; keep the majority's reasoning separate from the dissent.
Source: SCR 247-253 / PDF pp.19-25
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
All 50 pages read. Headnotes SCR 229-232; majority SCR 232-253; dissent SCR 254-278; final majority order SCR 278. Report-page pinpoints used.
- Majority SCR 253 records knowledge on 5 April 1954 and suit on 23 March 1955; dissent SCR 254 contains differing narrative dates. The note follows the majority findings.
Statutory scope
Historical sales-tax appeal included for its express analysis of the 1922 Income-tax Act's jurisdictional machinery. It is not a 1961 Act assessment decision or present-day refund guidance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-18. Judgment as delivered on 18 October 1965; subsequent treatment and present applicability unverified.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- reported judgment — PDF 50 pages
SHA-256: b056aba8319f6c056086e912278e474157df0bd9d1f156d58b4d356d442970db
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from identified primary reports. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, operative order, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court's holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.