Short Note : 1. The plaintiff claimed refund of the Octroi tax as per certificates on challans given to him amounting to Rs. 753.73 Nps. The refund was not made. The plaintiff gave notice and filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes. To begin with, it was filed in the regular Court of Civil Judge Class II. The plaint was returned for presentation to proper Court and it came to be filed in the Court of Small Causes. 2. The defendant Municipal Council raised a preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable in a Civil Court in view of section 135 (2) of the Municipalities Act, 1961. The objection prevailed with the Court and the suit has been dismissed. The Court further found that the suit was barred by limitation. Held: I propose to deal in this revision with the bar of section 135 (2). If the suit itself is not maintainable the question of limitation would hardly arise. 3. Rules framed for imposition of Octroi tax under the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 the parties admittedly were saved by Savings Clause contained in section 2 and the refund was claimable and was, in fact claimed under rule 34 and the following Rules prescribing procedure and the forum. Section 85 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act (the corresponding provision in the Act of 1961 being section 133) provided that the refund of taxes was claimable only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder. The is an admitted position that imposition and collection of the Octroi tax was not ultra vires the powers of the Municipal Committee. The refund claimable under rules fall within the ambit of the same rowers. Where the liability to pay tax is created by a statute and remedy is also provided to the party aggrieved, as has to pursue the remedy as is provided by Act and not by way of a civil suit. Section 85 of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act and section 133 of the 1961 Act expressly say that "no refund of any tax was claimable otherwise than that in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and by-laws made thereunder, section 83 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act provided for appeals and reference. Section 85 of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act and section 133 of the 1961 Act expressly say that "no refund of any tax was claimable otherwise than that in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and by-laws made thereunder, section 83 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act provided for appeals and reference. If the rules for imposition of Octroi tax and refund framed under C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act are saved, so would be the forum as mentioned in those Rules or the forum prescribed in the corresponding provision in 1961 Act. The law is well settled by the Supreme Court in Firm Seth Radha Krishon v. Administrator, Municipal Committee Ludhiyana ( AIR 1963 SC 1547 ) that mistake committed in imposing tax which was within the powers of the Municipal Committee to impose could be corrected in the manner prescribed by the Act and the remedy could not lie in a Civil Court. A distinction has been drawn between the imposition of tax which was ultra vires the powers of the Municipal Committee and the mistake committed in imposition which fall within the ambit of the power. In the latter situation, the remedy provided by the Act has to be pursued. 4. The Court of Small Causes was right in holding that the claim for refund of Octroi tax was not entertainable in that Court. Revision dismissed.