Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 71 Records
-
1964 (10) TMI 95
Issues Involved: 1. Whether the cost of land is entitled to depreciation under the schedule to the Income-tax Act along with the cost of the building standing thereon.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Depreciation on Cost of Land Along with Building
The primary issue addressed in this judgment is whether the cost of land is entitled to depreciation under the schedule to the Income-tax Act along with the cost of the building standing thereon.
Background and Arguments:
- Initial Assessment and Reassessment: The Income-tax Officer initially allowed a deduction of Rs. 29,925 for admissible depreciation in the original assessment made on May 27, 1957. However, upon reassessment, the deduction was reduced to Rs. 25,049 on the grounds that the cost of the land underneath the building could not be treated as part of the building for purposes of depreciation.
- Assessee's Appeal: The assessee, Messrs. Alps Theatre, Rajpura, appealed against this reassessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal, affirming that depreciation is admissible on a building used for business purposes, but not inclusive of the land on which it stands.
- Tribunal's Decision: The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, set aside the reassessment order and restored the original order, reasoning that the term "building" necessarily includes the land upon which it stands.
Legal Provisions and Interpretations:
- Section 9 and Section 10 of the Act: The Act does not define "building," but Section 9 treats the building as a unit apart from the land. Section 10 allows certain exemptions from tax paid on business, including depreciation on buildings. The term "building" is treated as a unit for depreciation purposes, akin to machinery or furniture.
- Department's Argument: The department contended that land is a capital investment and not subject to depreciation. Depreciation is allowed on the building as a unit, not on the land, which may increase or decrease in value independent of the building.
- Assessee's Argument: The assessee argued that land is an integral part of a building and cannot be separated from it for depreciation purposes. The term "building" should include the land on which it stands, as selling a building inherently includes selling the land beneath it.
Judicial Precedents and References:
- House of Lords Decision: The decision in Corporation of the City of Victoria v. Bishop of Vancouver Island was cited, where it was held that the term "building" includes the land on which it stands, as the land is essential for the building's use and purpose.
- Corpus Juris Secundum: It was noted that the term "building" sometimes includes the land on which it stands, depending on the context of the statute.
Court's Analysis and Conclusion:
- Comprehensive Interpretation: The court held that the term "building" in Section 10(2)(vi) of the Act should be interpreted to include the land underneath it. Depreciation is allowed on the building as a unit, which includes the land.
- Rule of Favoring the Assessee: The court emphasized that in cases where two interpretations of a taxing statute are possible, the interpretation favoring the assessee should be adopted, citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. C.S. Sastri.
- Final Decision: The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was correct, and the cost of the land is entitled to depreciation along with the building. The question referred was answered in the affirmative, and the parties were left to bear their own costs due to the complexity of the issue.
Separate Judgment:
- DUA J.'s Concurrence: DUA J. concurred with the judgment, acknowledging the difficulty of the question and the cogency of the revenue's arguments. However, he agreed that the Tribunal's view, which favored the assessee, should be upheld.
Conclusion: The court affirmed that the cost of land is entitled to depreciation under the schedule to the Income-tax Act along with the cost of the building standing thereon, providing a comprehensive interpretation that includes the land as part of the building for depreciation purposes.
-
1964 (10) TMI 94
Issues Involved: 1. Whether the Madras State Housing Board Act, 1961, and the Madras Town-Planning Act, 1920, preclude the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1961. 2. Whether the acquisition of land for housing schemes under the Amending Act is a colorable exercise of power. 3. Whether the Amending Act offends Articles 14, 19, and 31(2) of the Constitution. 4. Whether the Amending Act is protected under Article 31-A of the Constitution. 5. Whether the compensation provided under the Amending Act meets the requirements of Article 31(2) of the Constitution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Preclusion by Special Statutes: The petitioners argued that the Government could only acquire lands for housing schemes in conformity with the Madras State Housing Board Act, 1961, or the Madras Town-Planning Act, 1920, and not under the Amending Act. This issue was not pursued further by the petitioners in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in *Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi* and *Nandeshwar Prasad v. U.P. Government*.
2. Colorable Exercise of Power: The petitioners contended that the acquisition, though ostensibly for housing schemes, was intended for selling the lands and raising revenue for the State, thus constituting a colorable exercise of power. The Court found no evidence of sinister motives behind the acquisition and concluded that the lands were being acquired bona fide for developing a housing colony.
3. Violation of Articles 14, 19, and 31(2): The petitioners argued that the Amending Act violated Articles 14, 19, and 31(2) of the Constitution. The Court held that the Amending Act clearly infringed Article 14 due to unreasonable classification between lands acquired for housing schemes and other public purposes. The Act was thus deemed void for violating the principle of reasonable classification.
4. Protection under Article 31-A: The respondents argued that the Amending Act was protected under Article 31-A, as amended by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. The Court held that Article 31-A applies only to laws made for agrarian reform and not for acquiring property for purposes like housing schemes. Therefore, the Amending Act did not attract the protection of Article 31-A.
5. Compensation under Article 31(2): The petitioners contended that the Amending Act did not provide for "just equivalent" compensation, thus violating Article 31(2). The Court noted that the Amending Act prescribed principles for determining compensation, such as the market value at the date of notification or the average market value during the five years preceding the notification, whichever is less. The Court found these principles to be valid and not amounting to fraud on power. However, it held that excluding the potential value of the land from compensation pertains to the method of ascertaining compensation and does not constitute fraud on power.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court declared the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1961, void for violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court issued writs of mandamus restraining the respondents from proceeding with the acquisition under the Amending Act. The respondents were allowed to continue the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with the law. The petitioners were awarded costs.
-
1964 (10) TMI 93
Issues: Determining if income derived from rent of assets is business income assessable under section 10 or income from property assessable under section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The case involved the question of whether income derived from the rent of assets by a public limited company, which had ceased its cotton pressing business, should be classified as business income under section 10 or income from property under section 9. The assets in question included buildings, godowns, and machinery. The company had stopped its cotton pressing business in 1950 and decided to let out the buildings while planning to sell the machinery. The company contended that the rental income was business income, but the tax department argued it should be assessed under section 9. The Tribunal and Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the company's appeal.
The court highlighted the distinction between income from property and business income under sections 9 and 10 of the Income-tax Act. It emphasized that the classification depends on the nature of the assets and their relation to the assessee's activities. The court discussed the concept of commercial assets and their treatment under the Act, emphasizing that income derived from the use of commercial assets for business purposes falls under the business income category. The court referred to precedents and emphasized that each case must be decided based on its unique circumstances.
The court analyzed previous cases, including Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd., to determine the treatment of income derived from commercial assets. It discussed scenarios where assets were let out but not used for business purposes and clarified the criteria for categorizing income as business income. The court distinguished cases based on the continuous exercise of business activities and the nature of transactions. It emphasized that the determination of income classification depends on ordinary principles and the specific facts of each case.
In the present case, the court concluded that the company had ceased its business activity in 1950 and intended to sell the machinery, which was not let out. As the company's business had stopped, the assets were no longer part of the business asset, leading to the income from property rentals being assessable under section 9. The court rejected the company's claim for business income classification and ordered costs to be borne by the assessee. The reference was answered accordingly, with the advocate's fee set at Rs. 200.
-
1964 (10) TMI 92
Issues: 1. Whether the change in the rule of retirement, reducing the age of retirement to 55 years, amounted to removal of public servants without complying with Art. 311 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the rule in question was retrospective and if so, its validity. 3. Whether the rule resulted in inequality between public servants in the matter of retirement, violating Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Analysis: 1. The first issue addressed whether the reduction in the age of retirement to 55 years constituted removal of public servants without complying with Art. 311 of the Constitution. The judgment distinguished the present case from Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, North Frontier Railway, emphasizing that the rule in question pertained to the age of superannuation, not removal. It was held that the termination of service due to the change in the age of superannuation did not amount to removal within Art. 311, as the rule only dealt with the age of superannuation and did not violate the requirements of Art. 311(2).
2. The second issue revolved around the retrospective nature of the rule. The judgment clarified that the rule was not retrospective, as it applied from the date it came into force and did not affect government servants who were already retired before the new rule's implementation. The proviso and subsequent notifications were deemed as transitional measures to manage the impact of the rule change on public service, rather than retrospective application. The court concluded that the rule reducing the retirement age to 55 years was not retrospective in operation.
3. The final issue addressed whether the rule resulted in inequality between public servants in retirement, violating Art. 14 of the Constitution. The judgment highlighted that while public servants retired at different ages due to the rule change, the date of retirement was fixed uniformly as December 31, 1961 for all public servants affected by the new retirement age. The court emphasized that the rule itself did not discriminate, and the variations in retirement ages were a result of differing periods of service retention after reaching the age of 55. The court concluded that the notifications did not exhibit discrimination as they treated all public servants uniformly in setting December 31, 1961 as the retirement date for those affected by the rule change. Consequently, the challenge based on Art. 14 was dismissed.
In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the case.
-
1964 (10) TMI 91
Issues Involved: 1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to enhance the assessment. 2. Applicability of Section 12(1B) read with Section 2(6A)(e) of the Income-tax Act. 3. Interpretation of "enhance the assessment" under Section 31(3) of the Income-tax Act. 4. Consideration of new sources of income by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to Enhance the Assessment: The primary issue was whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) had the jurisdiction to enhance the assessment by adding Rs. 2,37,150 as deemed dividend under Section 12(1B) read with Section 2(6A)(e) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's jurisdiction, stating that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had processed the source of income, and thus, the AAC had the requisite jurisdiction to enhance the assessment.
2. Applicability of Section 12(1B) read with Section 2(6A)(e) of the Income-tax Act: Section 2(6A)(e) treats payments made by a company as dividend if they are loans or advances to a shareholder, to the extent of accumulated profits. Section 12(1B) deems such loans or advances, outstanding as of the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1955-56, as dividend income for that year. The AAC applied these provisions to include the outstanding loans from the company to the assessee as deemed dividends, amounting to Rs. 2,37,150.
3. Interpretation of "Enhance the Assessment" under Section 31(3) of the Income-tax Act: Section 31(3) allows the AAC to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, which held that the AAC's power to enhance is confined to the sources of income processed by the ITO. The AAC cannot introduce new sources of income not considered by the ITO.
4. Consideration of New Sources of Income by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner: The ITO had considered the company's business as the assessee's business and added the company's current profits to the assessee's income, treating the company as a benamidar. The AAC, however, considered the loans from the company's accumulated profits as deemed dividends under Section 12(1B) read with Section 2(6A)(e). The court held that the AAC introduced a new source of income by considering the loans as deemed dividends, which the ITO had not processed. This action was beyond the AAC's jurisdiction as per the principle established in Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry's case.
Conclusion: The court concluded that the AAC did not have the jurisdiction to enhance the assessment by introducing a new source of income not considered by the ITO. The answer to the referred question was in the negative, and the Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1964 (10) TMI 90
Issues Involved: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948, are mandatory or discretionary. 2. Whether the State Government's rejection of the appellants' petition without providing reasons was lawful. 3. Whether the High Court's interpretation of Section 5(3) was correct.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Mandatory or Discretionary Nature of Section 5(3) The core issue is whether Section 5(3) of the Act mandates the State Government to grant money or pension to descendants of former ruling chiefs who lost their land revenue exemptions under the Act. The appellants argued that the section is mandatory, while the State contended it is discretionary.
- Provisions and Interpretation: Section 5(3) states that the Provincial Government "may make a grant of money or pension" for the maintenance of any family of a descendant of a former ruling chief. The High Court interpreted this as discretionary, but the Supreme Court found this interpretation erroneous. The Court held that the word "may" in Section 5(3) must be read as "shall" or "must" when the conditions precedent (i.e., loss of exemption and being a descendant of a former ruling chief) are met. This interpretation aligns with the principle that statutes intended for public benefit or justice should be construed as mandatory.
- Rules and Enquiries: The rules framed under Section 8 support this interpretation. They require detailed enquiries into the applicant's circumstances, emphasizing the special status of descendants of former ruling chiefs. The rules distinguish between general applicants and those belonging to special categories, reinforcing the mandatory nature of Section 5(3) for the latter group.
Issue 2: Lawfulness of Rejection Without Reasons The appellants' petition was rejected by the State Government without providing any reasons, which they claimed was an improper exercise of power.
- Quasi-Judicial Duty: The Supreme Court held that the State Government's decision-making process under the Act must be quasi-judicial, requiring reasons to be provided. The absence of reasons in the rejection order violated this requirement. The appellants were entitled to know why their claim was rejected, especially since the Act bars civil suits, leaving them with no other remedy.
- Judicial Precedent: The Court cited the case of Messrs Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala, emphasizing that even decisions based on confidential material must provide reasons when performing quasi-judicial functions.
Issue 3: High Court's Interpretation of Section 5(3) The High Court dismissed the appellants' petition based on its interpretation that Section 5(3) conferred absolute discretion on the State Government.
- Supreme Court's Finding: The Supreme Court found this interpretation incorrect. It clarified that while Section 5(2) confers discretion on the State Government to pass orders as it deems fit, Section 5(3) imposes an obligation when specific conditions are met. The High Court's failure to recognize this distinction led to an erroneous dismissal of the petition.
Conclusion The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the State Government's rejection order. It directed the State Government to reconsider the appellants' application in light of the correct interpretation of Section 5(3) and to provide reasons for its decision. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appellants in both the Supreme Court and the High Court. The appeal was allowed.
-
1964 (10) TMI 89
Issues Involved: 1. Construction of section 2(6A)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the distribution of Rs. 1,570 per share out of "deemed profits" under section 10(2)(vii) is considered "dividend" under section 2(6A)(c).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Construction of section 2(6A)(c) of the Income-tax Act:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of section 2(6A)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The court had to determine whether the distribution of Rs. 1,570 per share, categorized as "deemed profits" under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii), could be considered as "accumulated profits" under section 2(6A)(c) and thus be liable to be regarded as "dividend."
2. Whether the distribution of Rs. 1,570 per share out of "deemed profits" under section 10(2)(vii) is considered "dividend" under section 2(6A)(c):
The court examined the true nature of the receipt described as "deemed profit" under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii). It was essential to determine whether the receipt was actual profit or fictionally regarded as profit. The court referred to the observations by Lord Radcliffe and Lord Simonds, emphasizing that the term "deemed" could impose an artificial construction or remove uncertainty but does not necessarily convert a non-profit receipt into profit.
The court analyzed section 10, which deals with the computation of profits and gains from business, profession, or vocation. Specifically, section 10(2)(vii) allows for a deduction when the written down value of an asset exceeds the sale price. The second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) states that if the sale price exceeds the written down value, the excess is deemed as profits for the year of sale.
The court highlighted that this deeming provision converts a capital return into profit for tax purposes. The Supreme Court's observation in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bipinchandra Maganlal & Co. supported this view, stating that the excess over the written down value, though fictionally regarded as profit, remains a capital return.
The court rejected the revenue's argument that the legal fiction should extend beyond section 10 to section 2(6A)(c). It emphasized that legal fictions are created for specific purposes and should not be extended beyond their legitimate field. The fiction in section 10(2)(vii) is intended to tax the excess as profit for the computation of assessable income, not for defining "accumulated profits" under section 2(6A)(c).
The court concluded that the distribution of Rs. 1,570 per share was not a distribution out of accumulated profits and thus could not be regarded as dividend under section 2(6A)(c). The court acknowledged that while this interpretation might result in the distribution escaping tax, it adhered to the principle that taxing statutes must be construed strictly based on their language.
Conclusion:
The court answered the question referred to it in the negative, concluding that the distribution of Rs. 1,570 per share was not a distribution out of accumulated profits of the company and therefore not liable to be regarded as dividend under section 2(6A)(c). The Commissioner was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1964 (10) TMI 88
Issues Involved: 1. Maintainability of the suit. 2. Validity of the clearance order. 3. Allegations of mala fides and fraud. 4. Amendment of the plaint. 5. Violation of constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Suit: The core issue was whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs in the City Civil Court, Bombay, was maintainable. The plaintiffs, tenants of the Dhobi Chawls, filed the suit in a representative capacity against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the landlords. The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds of non-tenability, and this decision was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and held that the plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable, affirming that the plaintiffs should have preferred an appeal before a Judge of the City Civil Court as provided under Schedule GG of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.
2. Validity of the Clearance Order: The plaintiffs contended that the provisions of Sections 354R and 354RA of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act were ultra vires of Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether these provisions imposed reasonable restrictions on the tenants' rights to hold property. The Court concluded that the provisions were valid and did not violate the constitutional rights of the tenants. The Court emphasized that tenants had the right to lodge objections to the clearance order and that the restrictions were reasonable in the interests of the general public.
3. Allegations of Mala Fides and Fraud: The plaintiffs alleged that the landlords and the Municipal Corporation acted mala fide and fraudulently induced the clearance order. The High Court allowed the amendment of the plaint to include these allegations and remitted the case to the City Civil Court for further evidence. However, the Supreme Court found that there was no basis for the allegations of fraud in the original plaint and that the High Court erred in allowing the amendment and remitting the case for a virtual retrial. The Court noted that the mere use of the term "mala fide" in the plaint did not justify the amendment.
4. Amendment of the Plaint: The High Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to include allegations of fraud and mala fides. The Supreme Court held that this amendment should not have been allowed as it introduced an entirely new case without any basis in the original plaint. The Court emphasized that amendments should not be permitted to make out a new case unless there are compelling reasons, which were absent in this instance.
5. Violation of Constitutional Rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g): The plaintiffs argued that Sections 354R and 354RA of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act violated their rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) by conferring uncontrolled executive discretion on the Corporation. The Supreme Court examined the provisions and concluded that they imposed reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. The Court held that the tenants had the opportunity to lodge objections and appeal against the clearance order, thus ensuring that their rights were not unreasonably restricted.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable and that the provisions of Sections 354R and 354RA of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act were valid and did not violate the constitutional rights of the tenants. The Court emphasized that the tenants had the right to lodge objections and appeal against the clearance order, ensuring that their rights were protected. The appeal was allowed, but no order as to costs was made.
-
1964 (10) TMI 87
Issues Involved: 1. Validity of the auction sale held on 14th May 1954. 2. Competence of respondent No. 1 to make an application under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Alleged material irregularity in the auction sale proclamation. 4. Substantial injury sustained by respondent No. 1 due to the irregularity.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Auction Sale Held on 14th May 1954: The auction sale in question was held to execute a money decree in favor of respondent No. 2 against respondent No. 3. The property sold was "old Daikhana" at Ajmer, which was mortgaged to the appellant. The sale was challenged by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the grounds of irregularity and substantial injury.
2. Competence of Respondent No. 1 to Make an Application under Order 21 Rule 90: Mr. Bishan Narain, representing the appellant, conceded that respondent No. 1, as a person holding a charge over the property sold, could rely on Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act and was competent to make the application under Order 21 Rule 90. Order 21 Rule 90(1) allows any person whose interests are affected by the sale to apply for setting aside the sale on grounds of material irregularity or fraud.
3. Alleged Material Irregularity in the Auction Sale Proclamation: The application by respondent No. 1 alleged that the auction sale proclamation failed to mention the charge in her favor, which had been recognized by a decree. This omission constituted an irregularity under Order 21 Rule 66(2)(e), which requires the proclamation to specify any encumbrance on the property. The court agreed that this was a material irregularity.
4. Substantial Injury Sustained by Respondent No. 1 Due to the Irregularity: The core issue was whether respondent No. 1 had suffered substantial injury due to the irregularity. The Judicial Commissioner initially found that respondent No. 1 had suffered substantial injury and set aside the sale. However, upon remand, the Executing Court held that respondent No. 1 had failed to show substantial injury, leading to the dismissal of her application. The High Court later reversed this finding, holding that the Executing Court erred in concluding that respondent No. 1 had not proved substantial injury.
The Supreme Court examined whether the failure to mention the charge in the proclamation led to substantial injury. The court noted that substantial injury must be determined based on several factors, including the number of properties sold, the extent of the claim, and the value of the remaining properties. The court found that properties Nos. 4 and 6, which remained available to respondent No. 1, were sufficient to meet her claims, and thus, the sale of property No. 3 did not cause substantial injury.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that although the charge was not mentioned in the proclamation, respondent No. 1 did not suffer substantial injury. Consequently, the requirement of the proviso to Order 21 Rule 90 was not satisfied. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the application by respondent No. 1 was dismissed. There was no order as to costs throughout.
-
1964 (10) TMI 86
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Constitution (17th Amendment) Act, 1964 2. Scope and effect of Article 368 of the Constitution 3. Impact of the amendment on Article 226 4. Legislative competence of Parliament regarding land legislation 5. Retrospective validation of laws by Parliament 6. Applicability of Article 13(2) to constitutional amendments 7. Fundamental rights and their amendability under Article 368
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Constitution (17th Amendment) Act, 1964: The six writ petitions challenged the validity of the Constitution (17th Amendment) Act, 1964, which added several Acts to the 9th Schedule, claiming it was constitutionally invalid. The petitioners argued that the impugned Act did not follow the procedure prescribed by the proviso to Article 368, making it invalid.
2. Scope and Effect of Article 368 of the Constitution: Article 368 outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It requires a bill to be passed by a majority of the total membership of each House and by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. If the amendment affects provisions listed in the proviso, it also requires ratification by at least half of the State Legislatures. The Court emphasized that the fundamental rights in Part III are not included in the proviso, allowing Parliament to amend them without following the additional procedure.
3. Impact of the Amendment on Article 226: The petitioners contended that the amendment of fundamental rights would affect the powers of the High Courts under Article 226. The Court held that if the effect on Article 226 is indirect or incidental, the proviso to Article 368 does not apply. The impugned Act did not directly change Article 226 and thus did not require the additional procedure.
4. Legislative Competence of Parliament Regarding Land Legislation: The petitioners argued that the impugned Act was essentially land legislation, which falls under the jurisdiction of State Legislatures. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Act aimed to validate State agrarian reforms by protecting them from challenges based on fundamental rights, not to legislate on land.
5. Retrospective Validation of Laws by Parliament: The petitioners claimed that the Act was unconstitutional because it retrospectively validated laws declared invalid by courts. The Court dismissed this argument, affirming that legislative and constituent powers include the authority to enact laws with retrospective effect.
6. Applicability of Article 13(2) to Constitutional Amendments: The Court revisited the argument from Sankari Prasad's case, which held that the word "law" in Article 13(2) does not include constitutional amendments. The Court agreed with this interpretation, stating that Article 368 allows for the amendment of all constitutional provisions, including fundamental rights, without being constrained by Article 13(2).
7. Fundamental Rights and Their Amendability Under Article 368: The Court discussed whether fundamental rights are immutable and beyond the reach of amendments. It concluded that Article 368 confers a broad power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that the Constitution is a dynamic document, and its provisions, including fundamental rights, can be amended to meet the changing needs of society.
Separate Judgments:
Hidayatullah J.: Hidayatullah J. agreed with the majority that the 17th Amendment did not require the special procedure under the proviso to Article 368. He expressed doubts about the reasoning in Sankari Prasad's case regarding the exclusion of constitutional amendments from the scope of Article 13(2) and reserved his opinion on this matter.
Mudholkar J.: Mudholkar J. concurred with the dismissal of the petitions but expressed reservations about the exclusion of constitutional amendments from Article 13(2). He emphasized the need to consider whether the basic features of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, are amendable under Article 368.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Constitution (17th Amendment) Act, 1964, dismissing the petitions. The Court reiterated that Article 368 provides broad powers to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, without being constrained by Article 13(2). The separate judgments highlighted differing views on the scope of Article 13(2) and the amendability of fundamental rights.
-
1964 (10) TMI 84
Issues Involved: 1. Constitutionality of the amended section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. Applicability of the amended section 34(3) to the reassessment proceedings. 3. Whether the reassessment proceedings were time-barred. 4. Whether the assessee, Shantilal, was a stranger to the proceedings under section 34.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutionality of the Amended Section 34(3): The primary issue was whether the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was ultra vires the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 14. The Tribunal had differing views: the Accountant Member held against the department, while the President was doubtful about the applicability of Article 14. The High Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas, which held that the second proviso to section 34(3) was unconstitutional as it introduced unequal treatment without a rational basis, thus violating Article 14.
2. Applicability of the Amended Section 34(3) to the Reassessment Proceedings: The reassessment proceedings for the assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46, and 1946-47 were initiated under the amended section 34(3). The Tribunal's Accountant Member believed that section 34(3) abrogated the limitations of both four and eight years. However, the President noted that the amendment was not retrospective and thus could not revive a remedy already barred. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's President, holding that the amendment could not revive a right to issue a notice that had already expired before the amendment came into effect.
3. Whether the Reassessment Proceedings Were Time-Barred: The Tribunal and the High Court examined whether the reassessment proceedings were initiated within the permissible time limits. The President of the Tribunal held that the period of limitation was four years, not eight, as there was no concealment involved. The High Court confirmed that the reassessment proceedings for the year 1944-45 were time-barred since the right to issue a notice had expired before the amendment to section 34(3) came into force.
4. Whether the Assessee, Shantilal, Was a Stranger to the Proceedings Under Section 34: The Tribunal considered whether Shantilal was a stranger to the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 34. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Income-tax Officer v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das, which clarified that "any person" in the second proviso to section 34(3) must be intimately connected with the assessment under appeal. The High Court concluded that Shantilal, being assessed as an individual and not as part of the Hindu undivided family (HUF), was a stranger to the reassessment proceedings initiated against the HUF. Therefore, the second proviso to section 34(3) could not be invoked against him.
Judgment: The High Court held: 1. The provisions of the second proviso to section 34(3) were ultra vires the Indian Constitution as they violated Article 14. 2. The reassessment proceedings initiated under the amended section 34(3) were not valid as the amendment could not revive a remedy already barred. 3. The reassessment for the year 1944-45 was time-barred and thus invalid. 4. Shantilal was a stranger to the reassessment proceedings against the HUF, and the second proviso to section 34(3) could not be applied to him.
The High Court answered the referred questions as follows: 1. Question No. 1: In the affirmative. 2. Question No. 2: In the affirmative. 3. Question No. 3: In the negative.
The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the respondent.
-
1964 (10) TMI 83
Whether having regard to the method of packing adopted and theother features of the get-up etc., on which the defence had relied,the defendant was not guilty of passing off?
Whether the word "Navaratna" was a common word in Ayurvedic phraseology and consequently the plaintiff could not claim any exclusive title to the use of that word by reason of his having used it for his products even though this had been for a number of years?
Whether the mark "Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories" could be validly registered?
Held that:- The conclusion reached by the Courts below that the appellants mark is deceptively similar to that of the respondents cannot be stated to be erroneous. Besides, this question of deceptive similarity is a question of fact, unless the test employed for determining it suffers from error. In the present case, it was not suggested that the Courts below had committed any error in laying down the principles on which the comparison has to be made and deceptive similarity ascertained.
As there are concurrent findings of fact on this matter, we do not propose to enter into a discussion of this question de novo, since we are satisfied that the conclusion reached is not unreasonable. Appeal dismissed
-
1964 (10) TMI 82
Whether a provision in a statute is mandatory or directory
Held that:- No serious general inconvenience or injustice to anyone if this part of the provision is held to be mandatory; on the other hand it will be unjust to tax-payers if this part of the provision is held to be directory, inasmuch as the disregard of it would deprive them of the opportunity to make objections to the proposals, and the draft rules. We therefore hold that this part of s. 131(3) is mandatory
The manner of publication provided by s. 94(3) which we have called the second part of s. 131(3), appears to be directory and so long as it is substantially complied with that would be enough for the purpose of providing the tax-payers a reasonable opportunity of making their objections. We are therefore of opinion that the manner of publication provided in s. 131(3) is directory.
In the present case the mandatory part of s. 131(3) has been complied with and its directory part has been substantially complied with and so s. 135(3) will apply and the objection that the tax is not validly imposed must fail. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (10) TMI 81
Issues: Interpretation of the term "oil-seeds" under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, regarding the classification of cocoanuts, groundnut kernel, and jira as oil-seeds for taxation purposes. The assessee contended that these items should be taxed as oil-seeds at a lower rate, while the Sales Tax Authorities initially disagreed but the Sales Tax Tribunal accepted the contention. The High Court analyzed the term "oil-seeds" as used in the Act and concluded that the popular meaning of the term should be applied. The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Ramavatar v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer to emphasize that common language interpretation should prevail. The Court explained that oil-seeds are primarily grains used for oil extraction, and items like cocoanuts, groundnuts, and jira, while capable of oil extraction, are not primarily used for that purpose. Therefore, these items do not fall under the definition of oil-seeds under the Act and should be taxed at a higher rate as per section 5(1)(c) of the Act.
The Court further supported its interpretation by referencing a similar judgment from the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kajjam Ramachandraiah, which held that not every seed capable of oil extraction should be considered an oil-seed for taxation purposes. The Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision regarding coriander, ajwan, and sompu as spices rather than oil-seeds aligned with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's interpretation in the present case. Based on this analysis, the High Court concluded that cocoanuts, groundnut kernel, and jira do not qualify as oil-seeds under item No. 3 of Part II of Schedule I of the Act. Consequently, the sales tax at the lower rate cannot be levied on these items, and they should be taxed at the higher rate. The Court answered the reference accordingly, ruling in favor of taxing these items at the higher rate due to their primary usage not being oil extraction.
-
1964 (10) TMI 80
Issues Involved: 1. Whether the best judgment assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act must be finalized within three years. 2. Whether the High Court should interfere with assessment on the writ side without the aggrieved party utilizing the remedies provided by the statute. 3. The impact of conflicting judicial opinions and Supreme Court decisions on the interpretation of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Finalization of Best Judgment Assessment within Three Years: The primary issue was whether the best judgment assessment under Section 11 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act must be completed within the period of limitation prescribed under sub-sections (4), (5), and (6). The Full Bench decision in Rameshwar Lal Sarup Chand v. Shri U.S. Naurath held that a best judgment assessment must be completed within the period of limitation, and any assessment beyond three years must be quashed for being without jurisdiction. This was supported by D.K. Mahajan, J., and Capoor, J., who emphasized that best judgment assessments had to be made within three years. However, Pandit, J., dissented, arguing that there was no need to import the three-year limitation for finalizing the assessment from sub-sections (4), (5), and (6) into sub-section (3).
2. High Court's Interference with Assessment on Writ Side: The question also arose whether the High Court should interfere with assessment on the writ side without the aggrieved party utilizing the statutory remedies. The court noted that the petitioner had approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the assessment made after the expiry of three years. The court observed that in matters of taxation, it is crucial to remove legal uncertainties promptly to avoid undue delays in tax realization. Therefore, the court decided to refer the matter to a larger Bench to settle the conflicting judicial opinions.
3. Conflicting Judicial Opinions and Supreme Court Decisions: The court discussed the conflicting decisions on the true scope of the Supreme Court's decision in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer. The Supreme Court in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax observed that proceedings duly initiated in time could be completed without a time limit. This was followed by a Bench of the Punjab High Court in Khushi Ram Behari Lal and Co. v. The Assessing Authority and Madan Mohan, Kot Kapura v. The District Excise and Taxation Officer. However, Shamsher Bahadur, J., in Murli Mal Ram Nath v. Shri Darvyo Singh, Assessing Authority, opined that the three-year limitation did not apply to ex parte orders of assessment where the assessee failed to respond to the notice.
Conclusion: The court concluded that the legal position on the point raised was far from settled or certain. It emphasized the need for a larger Bench to resolve the conflict, preferably by a Bench of five Judges, to consider the effect of the latest Supreme Court decision on the earlier Full Bench decision. The court directed that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice for suitable orders and prompt disposal of the petition.
Subsequent Orders: The petition was finally heard by Mahajan, J., who quashed the impugned assessment orders for being without jurisdiction as no steps were taken within three years for assessment under Section 11(4). However, the department could proceed to assess the petitioner under Section 11(3) in accordance with law. The petitions were allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1964 (10) TMI 79
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in determining the liability of the applicant to tax based on the available material instead of remanding the case? 2. Whether the applicant has been correctly held liable to tax based on his quantum of purchases plus 20% as profit?
Analysis:
Issue 1: The case involved a reference under section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, where the Board of Revenue sought the opinion of the High Court on the justification of the Tribunal's decision regarding the applicant's tax liability determination without remanding the case. The applicant, a cloth dealer, was previously held liable to tax from a specific date. Despite his objection that certain sales were not taxable, the authorities proceeded with the assessment. The Board of Revenue, while acknowledging the objection could be raised, decided not to remand the case as it deemed the available material sufficient. The High Court found the Board of Revenue's decision justified under section 22(4) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, as the applicant had already presented all relevant material, including purchase records. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's approach of deciding the case based on the existing record, leading to an affirmative answer to the first question posed.
Issue 2: Regarding the second issue of the applicant's tax liability calculation based on purchases plus 20% profit, the High Court analyzed the Board of Revenue's decision. The applicant had not registered for tax, and the authorities assessed his liability based on disclosed purchase figures for a specific year, adding a flat 20% profit rate. The applicant objected to this method as speculative, but the Court disagreed, citing precedents allowing taxing authorities to reasonably calculate profit based on a percentage of total purchases when no sales records are maintained. The Court emphasized that the profit rate determination is a factual inquiry based on business circumstances and does not raise legal questions. Referring to the case law, the Court found the profit calculation method appropriate and answered the second question in the affirmative.
In conclusion, the High Court answered both questions in favor of the Board of Revenue's decisions, directing the applicant to bear his costs and those incurred by the department. The judgment highlighted the authority of taxing bodies to assess liability based on available material and to calculate profit reasonably in the absence of detailed sales records.
-
1964 (10) TMI 78
Issues Involved: 1. Liability to pay sales tax on the turnover of Rs. 4,20,000 from the sale of arc furnaces. 2. Definition and scope of "dealer" under the Sales Tax Act. 3. Determination of whether the sale was in the course of business or an isolated transaction. 4. Relevance of profit motive and business activity in determining tax liability.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability to Pay Sales Tax on the Turnover of Rs. 4,20,000 from the Sale of Arc Furnaces: The primary issue was whether the company was liable to pay sales tax on the turnover of Rs. 4,20,000 from the sale of arc furnaces. The company contended that the sale was an isolated transaction of a fixed capital asset, not in the course of its business. The assessing authorities and the Tribunal rejected this claim, leading to the revision petition.
2. Definition and Scope of "Dealer" Under the Sales Tax Act: The court examined the definition of "dealer" under the Sales Tax Act, which requires a person to carry on the business of buying and selling goods. The court emphasized that the term "business" should be understood in a restricted and commercial sense, implying an activity with a view to earn profit. The court referred to several precedents to elucidate this point, including: - Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. State of Madras [1954] 5 S.T.C. 216: Highlighted that the word "business" in the Act implies an activity with a profit motive. - Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division v. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Motor Service, Gudiyattam [1954] 5 S.T.C. 128: Stated that isolated transactions of selling unserviceable assets do not make a company a dealer in those assets.
3. Determination of Whether the Sale Was in the Course of Business or an Isolated Transaction: The court analyzed whether the sale of arc furnaces was part of the company's business activity or an isolated transaction. The court noted: - The arc furnaces were purchased as capital assets for the company's manufacturing operations and not as stock-in-trade. - The sale of the furnaces was an isolated transaction due to their unsuitability, not a regular business activity. - The court referred to several cases to support its analysis: - State of Bombay v. Ahmedabad Education Society [1956] 7 S.T.C. 497: Emphasized that the sale must be in the course of business activity to be taxable. - Steelage Industries Ltd. v. State of Bombay [1957] 8 S.T.C. 376: Held that the sale of a motor car used by the managing director was not a business activity. - Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ram Dulare Balkishan & Bros. [1963] 14 S.T.C. 202: Stated that frequency, regularity, and volume of sales do not alone make an activity a business if there is no profit motive.
4. Relevance of Profit Motive and Business Activity in Determining Tax Liability: The court considered the relevance of profit motive and the nature of business activity in determining tax liability. It concluded: - The sale of the arc furnaces lacked a profit motive and was not ingrained in the company's regular business activity. - The sale did not have a reasonable connection with the company's normal business of manufacturing and selling machinery. - The court referred to several decisions to support this view: - Mining & Chemical Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1963] 14 S.T.C. 391: Held that selling machinery due to business closure was not a business activity. - Ambica Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1964] 15 S.T.C. 367: Stated that sales made during a modernization program without a profit motive do not constitute business activity.
Conclusion: The court held that the turnover from the sale of arc furnaces was not liable to sales tax. It concluded that the sale was an isolated transaction of a capital asset, not part of the company's regular business activity. The revision petition was allowed, and the decisions of the Tribunal and the assessing authorities were set aside. No costs were awarded.
-
1964 (10) TMI 77
Issues: Challenge to reassessment of sales tax for the financial year 1958-59 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India based on the best judgment assessment. Interpretation of provisions of sub-section (4) of section 11 and section 11-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 regarding the time limit for reassessment.
Analysis: The petitioner-firm challenged the proceedings taken by the Assessing Authority for reassessment of sales tax for the financial year 1958-59 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The initial assessment was challenged, leading to a "best judgment assessment" imposing an additional tax liability on the petitioner-firm. The petitioner contended that the reassessment proceedings, initiated three years after the relevant period, were in violation of sub-section (4) of section 11 and section 11-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. Sub-section (4) of section 11 allows the Assessing Authority to proceed to assess the tax due from the dealer within three years after the expiry of the relevant period if the dealer fails to comply with notice terms. Section 11-A permits reassessment within three years following the close of the relevant year upon discovering under-assessment or escaped assessment.
The Full Bench of the Court in a previous case clarified the interpretation of the phrase "proceed to assess" in the context of the time limit for reassessment. The Full Bench resolved conflicting views by emphasizing that the Assessing Authority must demonstrate that assessment was initiated within the statutory period. The Court held that a definite act or step indicating assessment initiation within the three-year period is required. In the present case, the notice for reassessment was served within three years, and the Assessing Authority had proceeded to assess before the expiry of the limitation period, culminating in the order of reassessment on 26th June 1961.
The petitioner argued that the period for reassessment should restart from the second notice issuance due to the appeal setting aside the initial judgment. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the Assessing Authority had already proceeded with assessment within the three-year period as required by the statute. The appeal outcome did not nullify the initial assessment process, and the subsequent notice was deemed a continuation of the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the Court concluded that the reassessment proceedings were not invalid based on the limitation period and upheld the Assessing Authority's actions as compliant with the statutory time limit requirements.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition challenging the reassessment proceedings, ruling that the Assessing Authority had initiated the assessment within the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioner's argument for restarting the limitation period from the second notice issuance was rejected, and the Court upheld the validity of the reassessment process within the statutory timeframe.
-
1964 (10) TMI 76
Issues: 1. Interpretation of rule 4-A(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957 regarding the demand for payment of excess collections by the petitioners. 2. Contention on the legality of the demand by the Commercial Tax Authorities and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 3. Analysis of the power conferred by Section 9-A of the Central Sales Tax Act and Section 13 of the Act in relation to the rules made by the State Government. 4. Comparison of judicial decisions in Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. State of Madras and Abdul Quader and Co. v. Sales Tax Officer. 5. Evaluation of the legislative power of the State Government in making rules concerning tax collections. 6. Consideration of the refund made by the petitioners and its impact on the demand for payment.
Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Madras High Court involved the interpretation of rule 4-A(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957, where the Commercial Tax Authorities demanded payment of Rs. 8,027-03 representing excess collections by the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that the collection was excess and should be refunded, arguing that the demand exceeded the lawful sales tax due. The authorities rejected this contention, leading to an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which also failed.
The petitioners then approached the High Court, challenging the demand for payment. They argued that the excess collection was akin to a contingent deposit meant for refund to the buyers and that a portion had already been refunded. The department contended that the amount collected was Central sales tax and should be paid to the State, denying any illegality in the demand.
The court delved into the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, particularly Section 9-A, which prohibits unregistered dealers from collecting tax and registered dealers from collecting tax not in accordance with the Act and Rules. The judgment referenced judicial decisions, including Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. State of Madras and Abdul Quader and Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, to analyze the scope of tax collection and the legality of demands for excess amounts.
The court scrutinized the legislative powers granted by Section 13 of the Act to the Central and State Governments in making rules, emphasizing that State rules should not conflict with Central provisions. It differentiated State rule-making authority under a Parliamentary enactment from that of a State Legislature, citing the exclusive power of Parliament in tax matters under List I.
Regarding the refund made by the petitioners, the court acknowledged the amount refunded and concluded that the demand should be limited to the difference between the total collection and the refunded sum. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering all circumstances, including refunds, in tax collection disputes. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition to a limited extent, directing the department to adjust the demand accordingly.
-
1964 (10) TMI 75
Issues: 1. Propriety of levy of interest for default in payment of arrears of sales tax under section 24(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in relation to an arrear of sales tax accrued before the Act came into force.
Detailed Analysis: The judgment in this case revolves around the question of whether it is appropriate to impose interest for the default in payment of arrears of sales tax under section 24(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, concerning an arrear that arose before the enactment of the said Act. The petitioner was assessed for sales tax for the year 1950-51 under the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939, which did not have provisions for levying interest as a penalty for non-payment within the specified time. Subsequently, under the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959, section 24(3) introduced provisions for penalty interest. The petitioner challenged the imposition of penalty interest for an arrear that accrued before the new Act came into force, arguing against its retrospective application.
The court analyzed the transitory provision in section 61 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959, which dealt with the repeal of the previous Act and the recovery of arrears under the new Act. The provision stated that arrears of tax and other amounts due at the commencement of the new Act could be recovered as if they had accrued under the new Act. The government pleader relied on this provision to support the imposition of penalty interest on the petitioner. However, the court noted that the imposition of penalty interest could not be considered a method of recovery of an amount due, as it was more akin to a liquidated sum for damages for the delayed payment.
The court referred to a Supreme Court decision that discussed the continuation of penalty proceedings under a previous enactment even after the extension of a new tax Act. The decision highlighted that penalty is an additional tax levied for contumacious action, supporting the petitioner's argument that penalty interest is distinct from the recovery process. Additionally, the court cited another case where it was emphasized that the imposition of penalty cannot be equated to the recovery of tax. Ultimately, the court held in favor of the petitioner, ruling that the imposition of penalty interest under the new Act for an arrear that arose before its enactment was not justified. The impugned order was quashed by a writ of certiorari, and the petition was allowed.
In conclusion, the court's decision emphasized the distinction between penalty interest and the recovery of tax, highlighting that retrospective imposition of penalty interest for arrears accrued before the new Act was not permissible. The judgment provides clarity on the application of penalty provisions in tax laws concerning arrears from previous legislations and underscores the importance of legal clarity and consistency in tax assessments and levies.
|