TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner claimed that in view of the proposal made by the Finance Minister that energy saving devices would be entitled to depreciation of 30 per cent., the accounts were closed for the financial year ending with June 30, providing depreciation at 30 per cent., though by then, the list of energy saving devices had not been released. In February, 1983, when the list of machinery entitled to 30 per cent. depreciation was notified, under the heading "Energy saving devices" contained in Appendix I, Part I, F(2A), "T.S.I. anodes" were not included. By then, according to the petitioner, the budget for the year 1983-84 was presented and in the course of presenting the budget, a proposal was made to allow 100 per cent. depreciation on devices and systems for energy saving. The petitioner, therefore, stated that for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 energy saving devices became entitled to 30 per cent. and 100 per cent. depreciation respectively. Since the petitioner's T.S.I. anodes were not included in the list of energy saving devices for the benefit of the higher percentage of depreciation, representations were made to the concerned authorities, but no action had been taken. Meanwhil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch to make available the benefit of depreciation at a higher percentage on the products manufactured by the petitioner as it was a matter of policy decision leading to the specification of certain items for differential treatment, owing to the circumstances that they contributed to the saving of power to a large extent. Stating that T.S.I. anodes manufactured by the petitioner would lead to a saving of power to the extent of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. but that the articles listed in group F(2A) in Appendix to Section III of the Income-tax Rules, as notified, would lead to a saving of power to a higher percentage and that the list of energy saving devices was finalised in consultation with the Ministry of Energy, the Central Electricity Board, and the Director-General of Technical Development, the respondents took the stand that if as a matter of policy, Parliament did not extend the benefits of additional depreciation to certain items, it cannot be challenged, unless the policy decision is either arbitrary or unreasonable and the list of energy saving devices cannot be stated to suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonable classification. The respondents also reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents submitted that owing to the complexity of fiscal adjustments of diverse elements, coupled with the available discretion in the matter of allowing depreciation for taxation purposes, the respondents have a very wide freedom to choose and classify goods in respect of which a higher percentage of depreciation would be allowed and the non-inclusion of T.S.I. anodes does not, in any manner, transgress the doctrine of equality and is, therefore, not vulnerable. It was also further submitted that the inclusion or otherwise of any criteria forming part of the fiscal policy formulation in which Parliament enjoys a wide latitude in the matter of selection of subject-matter for purposes of allowing higher depreciation and that classifications had been recognised, based on the differences in the economic superiority of the articles, particularly for purposes of allowing the higher rate of depreciation. Learned counsel also further submitted that speeches made at the time of the presentation of the budget could at best be regarded as proposals and cannot be taken as any definite assurance, for, after deep discussion and deliberation, such proposals may be modified, altered or even dropped ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en made might find a place in an altered manner or the proposals made may not be found at all. In other words, the Finance Minister proposes, but Parliament disposes. Therefore, even if proposals as found in the budget speeches for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 had been made, ultimately, these proposals have not been implemented by incorporating the proposals in the Finance Acts of the relevant years. The proposals had thus remained as such and merely on the basis of the proposals, the petitioner cannot, in our view, be heard to claim that the benefit of higher depreciation on T.S.I. anodes should be made available to it. In any event, at least for the year 1982-83 as could be gathered from the text of the speech referred to earlier, it had been stated that the list of the qualifying items would be notified in due course. Thus, even in the speech there was no assurance that T.S.I. anodes will be included in the list and no such assurance can also be read into the speech for the year 1983-84 earlier extracted. Thus based on the speech containing the proposal of the Finance Minister, without more, the petitioner cannot claim that its energy saving devices should be accorded the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so accord with the modern trends in juristic thought. In that case, with reference to the amendment introduced under section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the court was attempting to ascertain the mischief sought to be remedied by the amendment and the object as well as the purpose for which the amendment was introduced. In so doing, the court ruled that the underlying assumption of section 52(2) was the question of consideration and that applied only when actual consideration received by the assessee was undisclosed and the declared consideration for the transfer was shown at a figure less than that actually received. We are unable to find any support from this decision for the stand taken by the petitioner. We may now make a brief reference to the decisions relied on by learned counsel for the respondents. In N. Takin Roy Rymbai's case [1976] 103 ITR 82 (SC), the constitutional validity as well as classification for purpose of exemption from tax between the income of a member of Scheduled Tribe accruing or arising from any source in a specified area and income of such a person from a source outside such area, came to be considered. In that connection, the Supreme Court poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntage. There is no substance, in our view, in the plea put forward by the petitioner, that there is arbitrariness in declining to give the benefit of higher percentage of depreciation to the T.S.I. anodes manufactured by the petitioner, especially in the absence of the relevant data as to whether the T.S.I. anodes manufactured by the petitioner bring about reduction in power consumption to such an extent as to be considered eligible for the higher percentage of depreciation. That leads to the consideration of the question whether this court should exercise its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. Whether the T.S.I. anodes manufactured by the petitioner are such as to be accorded the benefit of a higher percentage of depreciation as an energy saving device as claimed or not, is not a matter for the court to decide, as that would depend upon a variety of technical details and data regarding the result of the use of such anodes and merely on the basis of the claim made by the petitioner, a writ of mandamus or even a direction to include anodes as an item eligible for the higher percentage of depreciation cannot be issued. We have also been informed that the representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
