Honble PALSHIKAR, J.–These four appeals raise identical question of law of substantial nature as framed by this Court while admitting the appeals. They are, therefore, decided by this common judgment. The question of law substantial in nature involved in the appeals was framed by this Court which is as under:- ``Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Sec. 143 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959? (2). Brief facts which are not disputed are necessary for adjudication of the question of law framed. The plaintiff in all suits J.K. Industries Ltd. filed the suits on the allegation that on certain items, the Company was granted exemption from octroi by the State Govt. and a certificate to that effect was issued by the competent authority nominated in that behalf. However, inspite of such certificate, certain sum of money (which vary according to each suit) were wrongly paid as octroi and, therefore, suits were filed praying recovery or refund of the amount wrongly recovered as octroi or wrongly paid as octroi. These facts are not disputed by the appellant Municipality. The suits were always opposed by the Municipality basically on the ground that such suits are not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 143 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) and hence, were liable to be dismissed. (3). It would be necessary for deciding this question of law to read in extenso the provisions of Sec. 143(1) of the Act. It reads as under:- ``143. Bar to jurisdiction of civil and criminal courts in matter of taxation-(1) No objection shall be taken to a valuation or assessment nor shall the liability of a person to be assessed or taxed be questioned in any other manner or by any other authority than is provided in this Act. .............................................................................................................. From the undisputed facts mentioned above, it will have to be seen, therefore, as to whether the embargo put by Sec. 143 (1) quoted above applies to the claim as made by the plaintiffs in these suits. It will be seen that the section provides that no objection shall be raised to a valuation or assessment made in regard to a tax nor the liability of a person to be assessed or taxed can be questioned. It will be seen that the section provides that no objection shall be raised to a valuation or assessment made in regard to a tax nor the liability of a person to be assessed or taxed can be questioned. According to the bar provided by Sec. 143, therefore, the civil and criminal courts will have no jurisdiction in regard to consideration of the following matters: (i) valuation or any property or price thereof for the purpose of assessment of tax e.g. an order was passed in regard to valuation of a house for the purpose of imposition of property tax or determination of the price of the goods for assessment and levy of octroi tax is made, then it cannot be questioned in civil court; (ii) if any order is made in regard to fixing the liability to pay such tax, it cannot be challenged in civil court; (iii) if an order is made determining the amount of tax payable, the order cannot be challenged in civil court. In effect what is barred by the provisions of Sec. 143 is take up for consideration in matter in regard to assessment or liability to any tax levied under the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act. Beyond that the bar does not and cannot operate. (4). The present suits are filed for refund of a tax assessed and paid on the ground that the amount according to the Municipality itself was not taxable at all. The suits, therefore, do not evolve question either of law to pay tax or its assessment by the Company so as to take away the jurisdiction of the civil court and hence, the suits were rightly entertained by the trial court and the decrees granted by the trial court were rightly confirmed by the appellate court. (5). Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. vs. Jabalpur Corporation (1). The judgment is u/S. 84 of the Madhya Pradesh Act. The wording of Sec. 84 of that Act is similar to the wording of Sec. 143. Relying on this judgment, it was, therefore, submitted that the civil court has no jurisdiction to take up this matter. Ltd. vs. Jabalpur Corporation (1). The judgment is u/S. 84 of the Madhya Pradesh Act. The wording of Sec. 84 of that Act is similar to the wording of Sec. 143. Relying on this judgment, it was, therefore, submitted that the civil court has no jurisdiction to take up this matter. The Supreme Court has observed in para 22 as under:- ``The argument that double duty was levied on the plaintiffs though not justified by the terms of Rules 14(b) goes to the correctness of the levy, not to the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. That rule authorizes the imposition of double duty if dutiable articles are imported (a) without paying the duty or (b) without giving declaration to the Octroi Moharrir. It may be that neither of these two eventualities occurred and therefore there was no jurisdiction for imposing double duty. But the error could be corrected only in the manner provided in the Act and by the authority prescribed therein. The remedy by way of a suit is barred. However, these observations of the Supreme Court of India are not applicable in the present cases for the reason that what was claimed in the suits was refund of non-payable octroi. The claim is not that the tax has been wrongly recovered or recovered in excess but the claim is that the Company is exempted from octroi as mentioned in the suits and, therefore, wrongly payment has been made, which is sought to be recovered by way of suits. Such suits, in my opinion, are not barred by Sec. 143 of the Act and the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court cited above, is of no effect to the Municipality. (6). Reliance was also placed on a judgment of this Court reported in The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Ltd. vs. The Municipal Council, Kota (2). This judgment also is of no use to the appellant. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bata Shoe Company cited above was also considered by this Court and it has been held that the provisions of Sec. 143(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act clearly exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court in the matters where the assessment or levy of octroi is challenged. In the present case also the levy or assessment is challenged. In the present case also the levy or assessment is challenged. What has been claimed in the present cases is that wrong payment of octroi has been made in regard to certain items on which octroi duty has not been levied by the Act itself or in relation to which payment of octroi duty is exempted by the order of the State Govt. and, therefore, the amount so paid to refunded. Clearly such suit is not barred by Sec. 143 even according to the judgment of this Court in the Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Ltd. cited above. (7). My answer to the question framed above, is, therefore, in the negative and consequently, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. (8). In the result, there being no substance in these appeals, the same fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.