|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 81 Records
-
1964 (4) TMI 126
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notices issued under section 22(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act.
2. Retrospective application of procedural amendments.
3. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution due to retrospective application.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Notices Issued under Section 22(4):
The primary issue was whether the notices dated 12th October 1953 and 21st December 1953 issued under section 22(4) were valid. The Income-tax Officer had issued these notices requiring the assessee to furnish accounts, documents, and information. The assessee failed to comply fully, leading to a best judgment assessment under section 23(4). The assessee's application to set aside this assessment was rejected. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the validity of the notices, stating that the amendment to section 22(4) was procedural and thus applicable to all pending assessments. The High Court agreed, stating that the provisions of sections 22(4) and 23 are machinery sections for tax computation and are procedural in nature.
2. Retrospective Application of Procedural Amendments:
The assessee argued that section 22(4) was not merely procedural and thus could not be applied retrospectively. The amendment, effective from 1st April 1952, allowed the Income-tax Officer to require additional particulars and information. The court held that procedural provisions generally apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise. The amendment was deemed procedural, aiming to aid in the correct determination of tax liability, and thus applicable to all pending assessments. The court clarified that the reference to 1st April 1952 meant that notices issued after this date, even if for earlier assessment years, were valid under the amended section.
3. Alleged Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The assessee contended that applying the amendment retrospectively would be discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The argument was that assessees for the same assessment year could be treated differently based on whether their assessments were completed before or after the amendment. The court rejected this argument, stating that procedural laws must conform to constitutional limitations but applying a procedural change to pending cases does not constitute discrimination. The court emphasized that the class of persons similarly situated for the operation of section 22(4) included all those whose assessments were pending at the time of the amendment. The procedural change applied uniformly to this class, thus not violating Article 14.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the notices issued under section 22(4) were valid, the procedural amendment was applicable to all pending assessments, and there was no violation of Article 14. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, and the assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the department.
-
1964 (4) TMI 125
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order made on 27th May 1961 under Section 47-A of the Road Transport Corporation Act.
2. Compliance with Section 25F(b) and (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. Compliance with Section 31 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947.
4. Validity of the proviso to sub-clause 3 of clause 9 of the reorganization order in light of Section 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the order made on 27th May 1961 under Section 47-A of the Road Transport Corporation Act:
The High Court rejected the contention that the order made on 27th May 1961 violated the provisions of Section 47-A of the Road Transport Corporation Act. This decision was not challenged before the Supreme Court, and thus, the Court did not examine the correctness of this conclusion. The appeal was disposed of based on the assumption that the High Court's decision on this point was correct.
2. Compliance with Section 25F(b) and (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act:
The High Court also rejected the petitioners' contention that the Government's action in abolishing posts and terminating services of employees contravened Section 25F(b) and (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This decision was not questioned before the Supreme Court, and the Court assumed the correctness of the High Court's decision on this point.
3. Compliance with Section 31 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947:
The High Court held that the Government's action in issuing notices of termination of services on abolition of posts did not comply with the provisions of Section 31 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act and was accordingly invalid. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation. The Supreme Court opined that the term "reduction in the number of persons employed" as mentioned in Item 1 of Schedule II of the Act does not cover the abolition of all posts. The Court stated that the word "reduction" implies that something must remain after the reduction, and the abolition of all posts does not fit this definition. Therefore, the Government was not required to follow the procedure mentioned in Section 31, and the High Court's order quashing the abolition of posts and the notices of termination could not be sustained.
4. Validity of the proviso to sub-clause 3 of clause 9 of the reorganization order in light of Section 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act:
The High Court held that the proviso to sub-clause 3 of clause 9 of the order was bad in law as it conflicted with Section 77 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act. However, the Supreme Court noted that there had been no specific assertion of any variation to the disadvantage of any workman, only an apprehension of potential future changes. Since no actual change had occurred and there was no immediate likelihood of such a change, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to examine the validity of the proviso at that time. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision on the proviso and left the question open for future determination if necessary.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order quashing the Government resolution of 29th May 1961, and the notices of termination. The Supreme Court also set aside the High Court's direction that no action should be taken under the proviso to sub-clause 3 of clause 9 of the order. No order as to costs was made.
-
1964 (4) TMI 124
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment pursuant to the notice issued under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Competence of the Income-tax Officer to issue a second notice under section 34 after a return was filed in response to the first notice.
3. Application of statutory provisions and relevant case law to the facts of the case.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Assessment Pursuant to the Notice Issued Under Section 34:
The primary question was whether the assessment made in pursuance of the notice issued under section 34 on February 12, 1958, was valid. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, initially submitted a return for the assessment year 1949-50, showing an income below the taxable limit. Years later, the Income-tax Officer discovered that the assessee failed to include business profits earned as a procurement agent for the Government. Consequently, a notice under section 34 was issued on March 22, 1957, and the assessee filed a return. However, the Income-tax Officer issued a second notice under section 34 on February 12, 1958, and made an assessment including Rs. 60,000 as escaped income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found the proceedings under the second notice invalid due to the expiry of the statutory period, and the Tribunal later set aside this order, directing the appeal to be heard on merits.
2. Competence of the Income-tax Officer to Issue a Second Notice Under Section 34:
The court examined whether it was competent for the Income-tax Officer to issue a second notice under section 34 after a return was already filed in response to the first notice. The assessee argued that once a return is filed pursuant to a notice under section 34, the Income-tax Officer must proceed with the assessment based on that return and cannot issue a fresh notice. This argument was supported by case law, including Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas [1959]. The court agreed, stating that the principle governing assessments initiated by a notice under section 34 is not substantially different from that governing original assessments. Therefore, issuing a second notice under section 34 was improper as the assessment machinery was already set in motion by the first notice.
3. Application of Statutory Provisions and Relevant Case Law:
The court analyzed the statutory provisions of section 34 and relevant case law to determine the correct legal position. Section 34(1) allows the Income-tax Officer to issue a notice if income has escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Once a notice under section 34 is issued, the Income-tax Officer must follow the same procedure as in the case of the original assessment, as observed in Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963]. The court held that the return filed in compliance with the first notice under section 34 could not be ignored, and the Income-tax Officer was obliged to complete the assessment based on that return. The issuance of a second notice was therefore invalid, and the assessment made under the second notice was not a valid assessment.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the assessment made pursuant to the notice issued under section 34 on February 12, 1958, was invalid. The Income-tax Officer was not competent to issue a second notice under section 34 after a return was filed in response to the first notice. The principle enunciated in relevant case law applied with full vigor, and the assessment based on the second notice was not proper. The court answered the reference in the negative, holding that the assessment was not valid, and ordered the department to pay the costs of the assessee, fixing the advocate's fee at Rs. 100.
-
1964 (4) TMI 123
Issues:
1. Validity of the law of pre-emption based on vicinage under the Constitution.
2. Interpretation of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 13 of the Constitution in relation to pre-emption laws.
3. Application of fundamental rights to customary laws of pre-emption.
Detailed Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad concerning a suit for pre-emption filed by the first respondent against the appellants. The case revolved around a sale of property and a claim for pre-emption based on vicinage. The lower courts had differed in their decisions, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court (SC). The High Court had certified the case for appeal, which prompted the SC to consider the constitutional validity of pre-emption laws based on vicinage under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 13 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench of the High Court had held that the law of pre-emption based on vicinage was saved by clause (5) of Art. 19 and was not void under Art. 13 of the Constitution. However, the SC referred to a previous judgment in Bhau Ram v. B. Baijnath Singh, where it was held that pre-emption laws imposed unreasonable restrictions on property rights guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(f) and were void. The SC noted that such laws placed restrictions on both the vendor and the vendee without benefiting the general public, as stated in Art. 15 of the Constitution.
The respondent's counsel attempted to distinguish the present case from the precedent by arguing that the earlier case dealt with legislative measures, while the current case involved customary law. The counsel referred to historical origins of pre-emption laws in India and contended that Art. 14 and 15 did not apply to customs or contracts. However, the SC emphasized that the ruling in Bhau Ram's case applied to both statutory and customary laws of pre-emption based on vicinage.
The SC analyzed the definition of "laws in force" under Art. 13 of the Constitution and concluded that customs or usages having the force of law were included in the ambit of fundamental rights. The SC rejected the argument that customs were not affected by Art. 19(1)(f) and held that the law of pre-emption based on vicinage was void under the Constitution. Consequently, the SC allowed the appeal, with parties bearing their costs throughout the proceedings.
-
1964 (4) TMI 122
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962.
2. Whether the Act was an independent legislation or merely a validation of a previous notification.
3. Whether the retrospective effect of the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.
4. Whether the Act contravened Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962:
The appellant challenged the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962 (Act No. 16 of 1962), claiming it was not an exercise of independent legislative power but merely an attempt to validate a previous notification dated December 30, 1958, which had been struck down by the High Court. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the Madhya Pradesh Legislature had the legislative competence to make a law regarding minimum wages under Entry 24 of List III (Sch. Seventh). The Court found that the Act was an independent piece of legislation, despite the fact that the rates mentioned in the new Act were identical to those in the previous notification.
2. Independent Legislation vs. Validation of Previous Notification:
The appellant argued that the Act was not independent legislation but an attempt to validate the December 30, 1958 notification. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the Act fixed wages in respect of certain employments at the rates mentioned in the Table appended to the Act. The Court highlighted that the legislature was fixing minimum rates of wages for itself, and the fact that these rates were identical to those in the previous notification did not make the Act a mere validation of the old rates. The Court concluded that the Act was indeed independent legislation.
3. Retrospective Effect and Unreasonable Restrictions on Fundamental Rights:
The appellant contended that the retrospective effect of the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while the retrospective operation of legislation is a relevant circumstance in deciding its reasonableness, it is not necessarily a decisive test. The Court referenced the decision in Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar, which upheld the retrospective operation of a validating Act. The Court found that the retrospective effect of the Act did not impose unreasonable restrictions, as employers had been aware of the requirement to pay at these rates for the entire period from April 1, 1959, and should have made provisions accordingly.
4. Contravention of Article 20(1) of the Constitution:
The appellant argued that the Act contravened Article 20(1) of the Constitution by making the new rates of wages payable from January 1, 1959, even for the past period. The Supreme Court clarified that the new rates of wages became enforceable from January 1, 1959, but payable only from June 21, 1962, the date of the publication of the Ordinance. The Court held that the duty to pay at these rates arose only on and from June 21, 1962, and no liability to pay compensation or face prosecution would arise if payment was made on that date. Consequently, the Act did not contravene Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962. The Court found that the Act was independent legislation, did not impose unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights, and did not contravene Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1964 (4) TMI 121
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of section 34(1)(b) proceedings for the assessment year 1948-49.
2. Legality of the notice issued under section 34 for the assessment year 1948-49.
3. Justification for adopting 15% as the basis for ascertaining the gross profit for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Legality and Jurisdiction of Section 34(1)(b) Proceedings for Assessment Year 1948-49
The first issue concerns whether the proceedings initiated under section 34(1)(b) for the assessment year 1948-49 were illegal and without jurisdiction. The court noted that the General Commercial Corporation Limited was initially assessed as "not assessable" for 1948-49 due to the absence of a previous year corresponding to that assessment year. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax, using powers under section 33B, found that there was indeed a previous year for 1948-49 and identified serious irregularities in the accounts, such as unjustifiable commission payments and undervaluation of stock transferred to a new company. This led to the initiation of section 34 proceedings.
The court held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had sufficient jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 34 of the Act. The court emphasized that the term "information" under section 34(1)(b) implied something the ITO did not know or could not have known with reasonable diligence before. The court found that the memorandum and articles of association were not initially disclosed to the ITO, constituting a fraudulent suppression of a vital fact. Therefore, the proceedings under section 34 were justified, and the answer to the first question was in the negative and against the assessee.
Issue 2: Legality of Notice Issued Under Section 34 for Assessment Year 1948-49
The second issue pertains to whether the notice issued under section 34 was illegal because it was not addressed to or served on the principal officer of the assessee-company. The court noted that the notice was served on Subrahmanyam, the secretary of the managing director, who acknowledged receipt on behalf of the company. The court clarified that section 34 requires the notice to be served on the principal officer but does not mandate that it be addressed to the principal officer. The notice should be addressed to the assessee, and service on the principal officer is sufficient.
The court dismissed the objection, stating that service on the secretary of the managing director, who was authorized to receive such notices, was valid. The court referenced the case of Kundan Lal Vedi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where notice received by an authorized accountant was deemed valid. Accordingly, the answer to the second question was in the negative and against the assessee.
Issue 3: Justification for Adopting 15% as Basis for Ascertaining Gross Profit for Assessment Years 1948-49 and 1949-50
The third issue concerns whether there were materials to justify adopting 15% as the basis for ascertaining the gross profit for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. The court noted that the ITO and the Appellate Tribunal found it impossible to ascertain the true profits from the accounts produced by the assessee, invoking the proviso to section 13 of the Act. The department initially estimated the gross profit at 20%, but the Tribunal reduced it to 15%, considering the assessee was an importer and not a manufacturer.
The court held that the Tribunal's estimate was reasonable and based on material evidence. The court rejected the assessee's insistence on accepting the book results, which showed a gross profit of 8.1%, as the method of accounting did not meet the approval of the income-tax authorities. Therefore, the court answered the third question in the affirmative and against the assessee.
Conclusion:
The court ruled against the assessee on all three issues, upholding the legality and jurisdiction of the section 34(1)(b) proceedings, the validity of the notice served, and the justification for adopting a 15% gross profit estimate. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the department, with an advocate's fee of Rs. 150.
-
1964 (4) TMI 120
Issues:
1. Whether interest paid towards a loan raised for acquiring the assessee's brother's interest in the family business on partition is in the nature of a capital payment and not allowable under section 10(2)(iii)?
2. Whether the Income-tax Officer's action in reopening the case under section 34(1)(b) for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55 was justified?
Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, concerning the deduction of interest paid on a loan for acquiring the assessee's brother's share in the family business. The court analyzed the provisions of section 10(2)(iii) which allow deduction of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for business purposes. The court emphasized that the purpose of borrowing the capital is crucial, not whether the borrowing was necessary at the time. The court held that if the borrowing was genuine and for business purposes, the deduction should be allowed, citing precedents like Birla Gwalior Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The court distinguished the case from Metro Theatre, Bombay Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, stating that it was not relevant as it involved different circumstances regarding payment of interest on unpaid instalments, not borrowed capital.
2. Regarding the reopening of the assessment under section 34(1)(b) for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, outlining the conditions that must be satisfied for such action. The court highlighted that the Income-tax Officer must have new information leading to a belief that income has escaped assessment. The court noted that mere change of opinion without new information is not sufficient for reopening assessments, citing Income-tax Appellate Tribunal v. B.P. Byramji and Co. The court found no justification for reopening the assessments in this case as there was no new information or change in circumstances that warranted reassessment. Therefore, the court answered the second question in the negative.
In conclusion, the court allowed the deduction of interest paid on the loan for acquiring the brother's share in the family business and held that there was no valid reason for reopening the assessments for the relevant years. The court awarded costs to the assessee and clarified the legal principles governing deductions under section 10(2)(iii) and the conditions for reopening assessments under section 34(1)(b).
-
1964 (4) TMI 119
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the first proviso to section 10(5)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act.
2. Determination of the actual cost of assets for depreciation purposes.
3. Legitimacy of the conversion of a partnership firm into a private limited company for tax purposes.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the first proviso to section 10(5)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act:
The core question referred to the court was whether the first proviso to section 10(5)(a) of the Act applied to the assessee. The assessee, a private limited company formed from an existing registered firm, valued its assets significantly higher than the written down value recorded in the firm's books. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Appellate Tribunal all concluded that the main purpose of this conversion and asset transfer was to reduce income-tax liability by claiming depreciation on the enhanced value. The court upheld this view, stating that the proviso to section 10(5)(a) was indeed applicable, as the main purpose of the asset transfer was to reduce tax liability.
2. Determination of the actual cost of assets for depreciation purposes:
The assessee argued that as a distinct entity from the previous partnership firm, it was entitled to depreciation allowance based on the actual cost of assets to it, not the written down value in the hands of the previous firm. The court noted that while the actual cost to the assessee usually determines the depreciation allowance, this cost must be scrutinized if the transfer's main purpose was tax reduction. The court emphasized that the proviso to section 10(5)(a) allows the Income-tax Officer to determine the actual cost if satisfied that the transfer aimed to reduce tax liability. The Tribunal's decision to fix the value of the assets at Rs. 25,000 above the written down value was upheld, as it was in line with the proviso's stipulations.
3. Legitimacy of the conversion of a partnership firm into a private limited company for tax purposes:
The assessee contended that the conversion was motivated by considerations of efficient business management and protection of private properties, with tax reduction being incidental. The court acknowledged that a business can be conducted in a way that minimizes tax liability legally. However, it found that the significant increase in asset values, without actual change in ownership, indicated that the main purpose of the conversion was indeed tax reduction. The court concluded that the Income-tax Officer was justified in going behind the contractual prices to determine the actual cost, as the enhanced values were substantially disproportionate to the written down values, thereby attracting the proviso to section 10(5)(a).
Conclusion:
The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, confirming that the first proviso to section 10(5)(a) applied to the assessee. The Income-tax Officer's determination of the actual cost, with the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, was upheld. The assessee was directed to pay costs fixed at Rs. 100.
-
1964 (4) TMI 118
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notices served on K. Shivanna under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of notices issued in the names of minor petitioners.
3. Question of reopening the assessment made on the petitioners.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Notices Served on K. Shivanna:
The court examined whether the notices served on K. Shivanna, a clerk of the petitioners' father, Nagappa, were in conformity with section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The procedure for service of notice is laid down in section 282, which allows service either by post or as if it were a summons issued by a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The court found that no notices were sent to the petitioners by post. Thus, it had to be determined if the notices served on K. Shivanna complied with the Civil Procedure Code. The relevant rules from Order V of the Civil Procedure Code were examined, particularly rules 9(1), 12, and 15.
- Rule 9(1): It was not established that K. Shivanna was an agent of the petitioners empowered to accept the notices.
- Rule 12: The revenue did not claim that it was impracticable to serve the notices on the petitioners or that the petitioners had an agent empowered to accept service.
- Rule 15: K. Shivanna could not be considered a member of the petitioners' family, and it was not claimed that the petitioners were absent.
The court concluded that the notices served on K. Shivanna were invalid as they did not meet the requirements of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act or the relevant rules of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. Validity of Notices Issued in the Names of Minor Petitioners:
The court agreed with the petitioners' counsel that notices issued in the names of minors are invalid. Under the law, minors cannot sue or be sued directly; they must be represented by guardians or next friends. This position is supported by the decision of the Madras High Court in Ravith Bibi v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Dindigul [1964] 52 I.T.R. 471.
The court found that the notices issued to the minor petitioners were invalid, as they were not issued to their guardians.
3. Question of Reopening the Assessment:
Given the findings on the first two issues, the court did not find it necessary to pronounce on the third point regarding the reopening of the assessment. The court noted that the facts were undisputed: the petitioners in certain writ petitions were minors, and the notices were served on Shivanna, who was not an agent empowered to receive notices.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the petitions and directed the respondent not to proceed with the proceedings initiated against the petitioners based on the invalid notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized that an assessee is entitled to benefit from errors committed by the income-tax authorities and that there was no fraud played by the petitioners. The petitions were allowed without costs.
-
1964 (4) TMI 117
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the requirement of three clear days' notice for holding a special general meeting as per Section 27(3) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951, is a mandatory provision.
2. Whether the meeting was improperly held due to the President not presiding over it.
3. Whether the requisition for moving the resolution of no confidence complied with the proviso to Section 23(9) of the Act.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Three Clear Days' Notice Requirement
The appellant contended that the meeting held on October 14, 1963, was invalid as the requisite three days' notice was not served on all the members. The High Court had held that the notices were effectively given on October 10, 1963, despite some members receiving it later. The High Court also opined that the provision for three days' notice was directory, not mandatory. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation that "sending" the notice equates to "giving" the notice. The Court clarified that "giving" notice is complete when it reaches the hands of the recipient.
The Court examined the legislative intent behind the notice requirement, emphasizing that the main objective is to allow Councillors to arrange their schedules to attend the meeting. The Court noted that the Act provides for shorter notice in cases of great urgency, indicating that the three-day notice was a measure of reasonableness rather than a strict mandate. The Court concluded that the provision of three clear days' notice was directory, not mandatory. The failure to give such notice would only invalidate the proceedings if it prejudicially affected the meeting, which was not the case here, as 19 out of 20 Councillors attended and 15 voted in favor of the resolution.
Issue 2: President Not Presiding Over the Meeting
The appellant argued that the meeting was invalid as he was not allowed to preside, contravening Section 24(1)(a) of the Act. The High Court found no evidence to support this claim and rejected the contention. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the Vice President took the chair only after the President left the meeting. Therefore, there was no contravention of the requirement that the President shall preside over the meeting.
Issue 3: Compliance with Proviso to Section 23(9)
The appellant asserted that the requisition for the no-confidence resolution did not comply with the proviso to Section 23(9), which requires a 15-day notice of the intention to move the resolution. The High Court did not address this argument, implying it was not pressed during the hearing. The Supreme Court clarified that the 15-day notice requirement applies only to the President, not to all Councillors. In this case, the President received the notice on September 25, 1963, more than 15 days before the meeting on October 14, 1963. Thus, the requirement was satisfied.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the failure to give three clear days' notice to some Councillors did not invalidate the meeting or the resolution of no confidence, as the proceedings were not prejudicially affected. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1964 (4) TMI 116
Issues Involved:
1. Whether extra depreciation is admissible under section 10(2)(vi) and section 10(2)(via) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, for diesel engines fitted to motor vehicles in replacement of existing engines.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Admissibility of Extra Depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(2)(via) for Diesel Engines Replacing Existing Engines:
Background:
The respondent, a bus owner and transport operator, replaced the petrol engines in two of his buses with new diesel engines, incurring an expenditure of Rs. 18,544. He claimed extra depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) and section 10(2)(via) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Income Tax Officer allowed only 25% depreciation under the first paragraph of section 10(2)(vi). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, denying the extra depreciation on the grounds that the engines were part of the equipment and not standalone "machinery."
High Court's Decision:
The High Court amended the referred question to include both section 10(2)(vi) and section 10(2)(via) and answered in favor of the assessee, allowing extra depreciation.
Supreme Court's Analysis:
The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly focusing on the definition and scope of "machinery" under section 10(2)(vi) and section 10(2)(via). The Court noted that the term "machinery" should be given a consistent meaning across various clauses of section 10(2).
Arguments and Reasoning:
- The appellant (Commissioner of Income Tax) argued that the term "machinery" in the context of extra depreciation should be restricted to self-contained units capable of being used independently in the business.
- The respondent (assessee) contended that the diesel engines, being new machinery installed in place of old ones, should qualify for extra depreciation.
Majority Opinion:
The majority held that:
- The term "machinery" should have the same meaning across all relevant clauses of section 10(2).
- A diesel engine qualifies as "machinery" as per the definition provided by the Privy Council in the case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Chairman, Cossipore and Chitpore Municipality.
- The diesel engines, when installed in the buses, met the criteria of being new machinery installed for the purpose of the business, thus qualifying for extra depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) and section 10(2)(via).
- The term "installed" includes placing an apparatus in position for service or use, and hence, fixing diesel engines in buses constitutes installation.
Dissenting Opinion:
The dissenting judge argued that:
- The replacement of a petrol engine with a diesel engine in a vehicle does not constitute the installation of new machinery.
- The term "machinery" should refer to a self-contained unit used independently in the business, not merely a part of a larger machine.
- Allowing extra depreciation for replacing parts could blur the distinction between repairs and new installations, contrary to the legislative intent.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, by majority opinion, upheld the High Court's decision, allowing extra depreciation for the diesel engines installed in place of the existing petrol engines. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Order:
The appeal was dismissed in accordance with the majority opinion, confirming the entitlement of the assessee to extra depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) and section 10(2)(via) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
-
1964 (4) TMI 115
Issues:
1. Validity of ex-parte decree obtained in suit for possession of land.
2. Allegation of collusion between the parties in obtaining the decree.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Ex-parte Decree:
The case involved a piece of land in Calcutta, part of a building lease taken by a private limited company from the Official Trustee. Subsequently, subleases were made, leading to a dispute over possession. The ex-parte decree obtained by the lessor against the lessee's sub-lessee resulted in the sub-lessee being declared a trespasser. The plaintiff, a sub-lessee, challenged the decree, claiming it was obtained fraudulently and collusively to evict him without due process. The Trial Judge initially declared the plaintiff as a tenant under the first defendant and issued an injunction against execution of the decree. However, the appellate Bench set aside this decree, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove collusion in obtaining the ex-parte decree.
2. Allegation of Collusion:
The main issue in the appeal was whether collusion existed between the lessor and lessee to procure the ex-parte decree. The plaintiff argued that collusion was evident from various circumstances, including common directors between the entities, shared interests, and strategic legal maneuvers to circumvent obstacles like the Thika Tenancy Act. The plaintiff contended that the failure to contest the ejectment suit and the omission to include the sub-lessee in the proceedings indicated collusion. However, the Court found that the actions taken by the parties were not improper or dishonest. The Court clarified that the omission to implead the sub-lessee was lawful, and the failure to contest the suit was not necessarily indicative of collusion, especially when no plausible defense was available. The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish collusion, and the decree in question was validly obtained.
In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the appellate Bench that the ex-parte decree was not procured collusively. The judgment emphasized that the legal actions taken by the parties were within the bounds of the law, and the plaintiff's allegations of collusion were unfounded. The Court's analysis focused on the lack of evidence to support the claim of dishonesty or improper conduct in obtaining the decree, ultimately affirming the validity of the decree and the dismissal of the suit.
-
1964 (4) TMI 114
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the appellate court under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
2. Retrospective application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
3. Powers of the High Court under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
4. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
5. Whether the Supreme Court can exercise the same power under Section 11(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
6. Applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to cases decided before the Act came into force in a particular area.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the appellate court under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
The primary issue was whether the appellate court could exercise its power under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for an accused convicted before the Act came into force in the concerned area. The appellate court and the High Court have the jurisdiction to make an order under Section 6(1) of the Act, even if the trial court could not have done so because the Act was not in force at that time. The phraseology of Section 11(1) is wide enough to include appellate and revisional courts.
2. Retrospective application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
The Act is a post facto law and has retrospective operation. The statute affects an offence committed before it was extended to the area in question. The Act does not change the quantum of the sentence but introduces a provision to reform the offender. The rule of beneficial construction should be applied to the Act, as it is intended to implement a social reform.
3. Powers of the High Court under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
Section 11(1) of the Act allows any court empowered to try and sentence the offender to imprisonment, including the High Court, to make an order under the Act when the case comes before it on appeal or revision. This provision is comprehensive and allows the High Court to exercise the same powers as the trial court under Section 6(1) of the Act. The High Court can make an order under Section 6(1) even if the trial court could not have done so due to the Act not being in force at that time.
4. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
A court cannot impose a sentence of imprisonment on a person under 21 years of age found guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment unless it is satisfied that it would not be desirable to deal with him under Sections 3 or 4 of the Act. The court must call for a report from the probation officer and consider it before making any decision. The calling for a report from the probation officer is a condition precedent for the exercise of the power under Section 6(1) of the Act.
5. Whether the Supreme Court can exercise the same power under Section 11(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
The Supreme Court, in disposing of an appeal against an order of the High Court, would be deciding what the High Court should have held in the revision before it. The Supreme Court's power is confined to the scope of the power exercisable by the High Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court can either make an order under Section 6(1) of the Act or direct the High Court to do so. The Supreme Court must comply with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act before making any order.
6. Applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to cases decided before the Act came into force in a particular area:
The dissenting opinion argued that the appellate court could not take action under the Act if the trial court could not have done so because the Act was not in force at the time of conviction. The majority opinion, however, held that the appellate court and the High Court could exercise their powers under Section 11 of the Act, even if the trial court could not have done so due to the Act not being in force at that time.
Conclusion:
The majority opinion set aside the order of the High Court and directed it to make an order under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or to remand the case to the Sessions Court for doing so. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act and the beneficial construction of the statute to implement social reform.
-
1964 (4) TMI 113
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sale on January 21, 1948, was by the assessee firm or by its partners in their individual capacity.
2. Whether the sum of Rs. 5,06,557 is chargeable under section 10(2)(vii) of the Act.
3. Whether the sum of Rs. 19,59,258 is chargeable as capital gains under section 12B of the Income-tax Act.
4. Whether the excess receipts on the transfer (sale) of the stock of sugar to the limited concern is chargeable to tax under section 10 of the Income-tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Sale by Assessee Firm or Individual Partners:
The court determined that the sale on January 21, 1948, was effected by the assessee firm and not by its partners in their individual capacity. The Tribunal noted that there was no deed of dissolution nor any evidence of the firm's dissolution. The agreement of sale indicated that the assessee was a party to the agreement, not the individual partners. The business was transferred as a going concern, and the memorandum of association of the company and the certificate from the Controller of Capital Issues both supported this conclusion. Therefore, the firm was not dissolved at the time of the transfer.
2. Chargeability under Section 10(2)(vii):
The court addressed whether the sum of Rs. 5,06,557, being the difference between the original cost and the written-down value of assets, was chargeable under section 10(2)(vii) of the Act. The assessee argued that there was no sale in the commercial sense since the partners were also the shareholders of the company. However, the court found no evidence that the partners were the only shareholders or that they held almost all the shares. The certificate from the Controller of Capital Issues indicated that shares worth Rs. 40,00,000 were to be issued, while the statement of the case showed that shares worth Rs. 30,00,000 were allotted to the partners. This suggested the presence of other shareholders. Consequently, the court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) applied and the sum was chargeable.
3. Chargeability as Capital Gains under Section 12B:
The court examined whether the sum of Rs. 19,59,258 was chargeable as capital gains under section 12B of the Income-tax Act. The assessee contended that the gain was not chargeable because the case fell under the third proviso to section 12B, which exempts gains arising from the distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm. However, the court found that the assessee was not dissolved at the time of the sale, and there was no distribution of capital assets among the partners. Therefore, the third proviso to section 12B did not apply, and the gain was chargeable as capital gains.
4. Taxability of Excess Receipts on Transfer of Stock:
The supplementary statement of the case raised the issue of whether the excess receipts on the transfer of stock of sugar to the limited concern were chargeable to tax under section 10 of the Income-tax Act. The court upheld a preliminary objection, noting that the application for the supplementary statement was made under section 66(4), which was not maintainable. The Supreme Court's decision in Kamlapat Motilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax clarified that such applications should be made under section 66(2). Since the application was not maintainable, the reference was deemed incompetent, and the court declined to answer this question.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the sale was by the assessee firm, the sum of Rs. 5,06,557 was chargeable under section 10(2)(vii), and the sum of Rs. 19,59,258 was chargeable as capital gains under section 12B. The preliminary objection regarding the supplementary statement was upheld, and the court declined to answer the related question on the taxability of excess receipts on the transfer of stock.
-
1964 (4) TMI 112
Issues:
1. Whether the appellant ceased to be a partner of the firm after transferring his interest to another individual.
2. Whether a separate notice of demand is required to be served on an individual partner for the recovery of tax liability assessed against a firm.
3. Whether the appellant, who was not shown as a partner in the partnership deed during assessment proceedings, can be held liable for the tax liability assessed on the firm.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appellant claimed he sold his share in a partnership firm but was later asked to pay income tax assessed on the firm. The respondents argued that the appellant continued to be a partner despite the sale. The court referred to the Partnership Act, stating that a partner transferring interest does not cease to be a partner unless specified in the partnership deed. The court held that the appellant remained a partner even after transferring his interest, based on the Act's provisions. Therefore, the appellant was liable for the tax assessed on the firm.
Issue 2:
The appellant argued that a separate notice of demand should have been served on him as an individual partner for tax recovery. The court disagreed, stating that once the assessment order is made and a notice of demand issued to the firm, individual partners are jointly and severally liable to meet the tax liability. The court cited legal sources to support that partners can be sued jointly for the firm's tax debt without considering their respective shares.
Issue 3:
The appellant contended that since he was not listed as a partner in the partnership deed during assessment proceedings, he should not be held liable for the tax assessed on the firm. The court rejected this argument, stating that the appellant's status as a partner was not a condition for the tax liability. The court held that the appellant was indeed liable for the tax assessed on the firm, regardless of his partner status in the deed during assessment.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, holding the appellant liable for the tax assessed on the firm and allowing the respondents to proceed with the recovery of the tax liability. The court also awarded costs to the respondents.
-
1964 (4) TMI 111
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessments for the years 1948-49, 1949-50, and 1950-51.
2. Exemption of income under section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of Assessments for the Years 1948-49, 1949-50, and 1950-51
The court examined whether the assessments made on the court receiver for the years 1948-49, 1949-50, and 1950-51 were valid. The dispute arose from the income received by the estate of Haji Alimohamed Haji Cassum, who died on November 6, 1946, leaving a will dated November 30, 1934. The will appointed certain executors and trustees. Disputes among the heirs led to the appointment of private receivers by the court on July 15, 1949, and later a court receiver on June 30, 1950.
The court receiver contended that the income for the relevant years was received by the executors and private receivers, not by the court receiver, making the assessments invalid. The Tribunal had rejected this contention, holding that there was continuity in the office of the receiver, and the change of incumbents did not alter the position.
The court disagreed with the Tribunal, stating that the continuity in the office of the receiver does not imply that the court receiver is liable for income received by others. The court emphasized that the Income-tax Act imposes tax on the person who actually received the income during the relevant accounting year. The court cited Asit Kumar Ghose v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, which held that the income received by executors cannot be assessed in the hands of a subsequent receiver.
Conclusion: The court held that the assessments made on the court receiver for the years 1948-49, 1949-50, and 1950-51 were invalid as the income was not received by the court receiver during those years.
Issue 2: Exemption of Income under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
The court examined whether 1/3rd of the income from the estate was exempt under section 4(3)(i) of the Act, which exempts income held under trust or legal obligation for charitable purposes. The will directed that 1/3rd of the remaining property be set apart for specific charitable purposes.
The Tribunal had found that the administration of the estate was not complete, and therefore, no trust or legal obligation had emerged. The court, however, disagreed, stating that the completion of administration is not a universal condition for the emergence of a trust. The court emphasized that the intention to create a trust, the trust property, the purpose, and the beneficiaries must be established.
The court found that the executors had assented to hold 1/3rd of the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries under the will, creating a trust or legal obligation. The court also examined the purposes mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (f) of clause 4 of the will and found them to be charitable or religious.
Conclusion: The court held that the 1/3rd share of the property required to give effect to the dispositions in sub-clauses (a) to (f) of clause 4 of the will was held under a trust or legal obligation for charitable purposes and was thus exempt under section 4(3)(i) of the Act.
Final Judgment:
First Issue: The assessments made on the court receiver for the years 1948-49, 1949-50, and 1950-51 were invalid.
Second Issue: The 1/3rd share of the property required to give effect to the dispositions in sub-clauses (a) to (f) of clause 4 of the will was held under a trust or legal obligation for charitable purposes and was exempt under section 4(3)(i) of the Act.
-
1964 (4) TMI 110
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the maintainability of a suit for possession and mesne profits.
2. Conflict of judicial opinion on whether suits for possession and mesne profits are based on the same cause of action.
3. Requirement for the defendant to establish the same cause of action in a plea under Order 2 Rule 2.
4. Necessity of producing the pleadings from the previous suit to establish the bar under Order 2 Rule 2.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute where the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of property and mesne profits against the defendant. The defendant raised a plea under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, contending that the suit was barred as the plaintiff had omitted to claim possession in a previous suit. The trial court accepted this plea, leading to an appeal by the plaintiff. The appellate court considered the conflict of judicial opinions on whether suits for possession and mesne profits arise from the same cause of action. The District Judge, on appeal, set aside the dismissal of the suit, emphasizing the need for evidence to establish the bar under Order 2 Rule 2.
The defendant then appealed to the High Court, which upheld the District Judge's decision. The High Court highlighted the importance of proving the same cause of action in both suits to succeed in a plea under Order 2 Rule 2. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff's reference to the previous suit for mesne profits should establish the bar was rejected. The High Court emphasized the necessity of producing the pleadings from the previous suit to substantiate the plea under Order 2 Rule 2.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the requirement for the defendant to establish the same cause of action in both suits to succeed in a plea under Order 2 Rule 2. The Court rejected the defendant's argument that the reference to the previous suit in the plaintiff's pleadings was sufficient to establish the bar, emphasizing the need for producing the actual pleadings from the previous suit. The Court upheld the order of remand for the trial court to decide the case on its merits, emphasizing the importance of proving the identity of the cause of action in both suits for a plea under Order 2 Rule 2 to succeed.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, reiterating the necessity of proving the same cause of action in both suits to establish a bar under Order 2 Rule 2. The Court emphasized the importance of producing the pleadings from the previous suit to substantiate such a plea, affirming the lower courts' decisions and ordering a trial on the merits of the case.
-
1964 (4) TMI 109
Whether the present proceeding is one to enforce a right arising from the contract of the parties?
Whether by reason of the fact that the words "other proceeding" stand opposed to the words "a claim of set-off" any limitation in their eaning was contemplated
Held that:- Whether we view the contract between the parties as ;a whole or view only the clause about arbitration, it is impossible to think that the right to proceed to arbitration is not one of the rights which are founded on the . agreement of the parties. The words of s. 69(3) "a right arising from a contract" are in either sense sufficient to cover the present matter.
The words 'other proceeding' in subs. (3) must receive their full meaning untramelled by the words 'a claim of set-off'. The latter words neither intend nor can be construed to cut down the generality of the words 'other proceeding'. The sub-section provides for the application of the provisions of sub-ss. (1) and (2) to claims of set-off and also to other proceedings of any Kind which can properly be said to be for enforcement of any right arising from contract except those expressly mentioned as exceptions in sub-s. (3) and sub-s. (4). Appeal allowed.
-
1964 (4) TMI 108
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding payment of tax as a condition for entertaining appeals.
2. Application of section 21(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
3. Judicial discretion and reasonableness in compelling payment of tax within a short period.
4. Impact of granting adequate time for tax payment on the collection process.
Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought writs of mandamus to direct the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to refrain from enforcing orders requiring them to pay the entire sales tax and provide proof of payment as a condition for entertaining their appeals. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had dismissed their appeals for non-payment of tax within 7 days. The Tribunal, under section 21(6) of the Act, asked for proof of tax payment before entertaining the appeals. The main contention was that section 21(6) did not apply as the tax amount was not determined by the Assistant Commissioner in the dismissed appeals. The court held that the Tribunal's order was without jurisdiction as the provision required a determination of tax liability by the appellate authority, which was lacking in this case.
2. Section 21(6) mandates that no appeal shall be entertained by the Tribunal without proof of tax payment as determined in an appeal under section 19. The court emphasized that this requirement applies only when the appellate authority determines the tax payable by the appellant. Since the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeals without assessing the tax liability, the condition of payment or proof of payment as per section 21(6) was deemed inapplicable. The court highlighted that the provision necessitates a quasi-judicial determination of tax liability by the appellate authority, which was absent in this scenario.
3. The court criticized the Assistant Commissioner's order compelling immediate tax payment within 7 days under penalty of appeal dismissal as unreasonable and arbitrary. It stressed that such actions rendered the right of appeal illusory and violated principles of judicial discretion. The court emphasized that quasi-judicial processes must be followed by tribunals, and orders like these must afford reasonable time for tax payment to uphold the right of appeal. While refraining from setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's orders due to pending appeals before the Tribunal, the court directed the Tribunal to grant a reasonable time for tax payment to enable a proper disposal of the appeals.
4. The court highlighted the importance of granting adequate time for tax payment to prevent delays in the collection process. It noted that undue haste in demanding tax payment could lead to prolonged legal proceedings, ultimately benefiting the assessees in delaying tax payment. The court urged the Tribunal to expedite the handling of the cases to prevent any attempts by the assessees to prolong the process for their advantage. Ultimately, the court directed the Tribunal to consider the cases without the requirement of tax payment as determined by the Assistant Commissioner, emphasizing the lack of such determination in the dismissed appeals.
-
1964 (4) TMI 107
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction to revise assessments.
2. Validity of the license for the entire assessment year.
3. Differential treatment of licensed and unlicensed dealers under Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. Taxation on the sale price of goods purchased during the unlicensed period.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction to Revise Assessments:
The petitioner initially contended that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessments. However, this contention was not pressed during the arguments. The court noted that the petitioner did not avail the right of appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of assessment, which could have been a proper remedy.
2. Validity of the License for the Entire Assessment Year:
The petitioner argued that the license obtained on 29th May 1954 should be considered valid for the whole assessment year, thus exempting the sales effected after obtaining the license from being taxed at the sales point. The court rejected this argument, stating that under the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, a license is effective only from the date of its grant unless applied for before the 30th of April of the assessment year. Since the petitioner did not apply before this date, the license was valid only from 29th May 1954. Consequently, the petitioner was treated as an unlicensed dealer for the period from 1st April 1954 to 28th May 1954.
3. Differential Treatment of Licensed and Unlicensed Dealers under Article 14:
The petitioner contended that the differential treatment of licensed and unlicensed dealers violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court dismissed this contention, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madras v. M.A. Noor Mohammed & Co., which upheld the validity of such differential treatment. The court noted that the classification between licensed and unlicensed dealers is integrally connected with the purpose of the Act, aiming to prevent tax evasion. The licensing system was deemed a reasonable restriction and an integral part of the tax measures, thus not violating Article 14.
4. Taxation on the Sale Price of Goods Purchased During the Unlicensed Period:
The petitioner argued against being taxed on the estimated sale price of goods purchased during the unlicensed period. The court found no support for this contention in the cited authorities. It emphasized that under the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, the purchases made during the unlicensed period could not be taxed at the purchase point but could be taxed on the sale value. The court upheld the view that unlicensed dealers are liable to tax under section 3 of the Act, which provides for a multi-point levy, and not entitled to the single point tax benefit.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, affirming that:
- The authorities had jurisdiction to revise the assessments.
- The license was valid only from 29th May 1954, not for the entire assessment year.
- The differential treatment of licensed and unlicensed dealers did not violate Article 14.
- The petitioner could be taxed on the sale price of goods purchased during the unlicensed period.
The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
9911796707
