TMI Blog1927 (7) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the 12th January, 1926, and that in the second having been made on the 6th January, 1926. In each case also the High Court refused to certify that the case was a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council. With these facts for its foundation, an interesting argument was addressed to the Board upon the nature of the statutory appeal in such cases as these, and upon the question whether in the present instances there is any such appeal at all. The learned Judges of the High Court were of opinion that the petitioners had a right of appeal to His Majesty in Council provided they could, in effect, bring their cases within the requirements of section 109(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, but not otherwise. They dealt with the applications ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case cited was, however, definitely to lay it down that from these orders there was, in fact, no statutory right of appeal at all. And such was the position until the 1st April, 1926, when the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1926, came into force, by section 8 of which it is provided that immediately after section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, a section should be inserted, of which it is convenient to transcribe the first three sub-sections. 66A. (1) When any case has been referred to the High Court under section 66, it shall be heard by a Bench of not less than two judges of the High Court, and in respect of such case the provisions of section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall, so far as may be, apply notwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on had stood alone, it would be difficult to escape from the construction of it which has just been indicated. It was contended, however, that the reference to the Code in sub-section (3) was made in terms sufficiently comprehensive to include within the class of appealable cases all that are defined in the provisions incorporated by reference. Their Lordships cannot agree with this contention. The words of qualification, so far as may be , in sub-section (3) are, in their judgment, apt to confine the statutory right of appeal to the cases described in sub-section (2). To this extent, therefore, their Lordships are in agreement with the High Court. But a further point remains. Is there under this section any appeal at all from an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory right of appeal to His Majesty in Council. Only by an exercise of the Prerogative is either appeal admissible. Both petitions their Lordships have, from this point of view, carefully considered. They have not forgotten that the circumstances are somewhat special; that the right of appeal introduced by the Act of 1926 is very probably conceded in order to rectify an omission inadvertently made from previous legislation, and is not one thought of for the first time. Even so, however, their Lordships are unable to find in the circumstances of either case sufficient ground for any exercise of the Prerogative in favour of the petitioners. Their Lordships will accordingly humbly advise His Majesty that both petitions should be dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
