TMI Blog1975 (4) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the territories forming their respective States. The Government of India, in turn, agreed to pay privy purses to the ruling Princes and allowances to their dependants or their relations. The Ruler of the erstwhile State of Patiala, pursuant to this agreement, was informed by letter dated April 2, 1949, by the Ministry of States, Government of India, regarding its decision with regard to the privy purse allowance admissible to him as Raj Pramukh and allowances for Rajmatas and other relations. The privy purse of the then His Highness the Maharaja of Patiala was fixed at Rs. 17 lakhs per annum and his allowance as Raj Pramukh was fixed at Rs. 5 lakhs per annum. The latter allowance was exclusive of the cost of the staff required for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion exempting this allowance from payment of income-tax and hence rejected this representation on August 25, 1965. The appellant then filed Civil Writ No. 657 of 1967 in this court challenging the imposition of income-tax on the ground that he was being paid this allowance as a member of the Hindu undivided family out of the income of the family, as also on the ground that the erstwhile State of Patiala was an impartible estate and that this fund was being paid out of the income of the holder of the estate belonging to the family. This petition was dismissed by a learned judge of this court and hence this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the State of Patiala was an impartible e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o partition nor a right to restrain any alienation (See in this connection Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh, Komammal v. Annadana Jadaya Gounder, Shiba Prasad Singh v. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi and Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sunder Mal). Even after the merger of the erstwhile State of Patiala in the Union of India, the appellant continued to get an allowance, of Rs. 2,000 per mensem under the letter dated April 2, 1949, issued by the Ministry of States, Government of India. Under these circumstances, it must be held that when the erstwhile State of Patiala was in existence, the appellant was receiving maintenance allowance in accordance with the principles of the customary law governing the family. The questions which now remain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt would have to be regarded as his income. A tax is a burden or a charge imposed by the legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes. In Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa, it was observed as follows: "A tax is undoubtedly in the nature of a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes, the payment of which is enforced by law. But the essential thing in a tax is that the imposition is made for public purposes to meet the general expenses of the State without reference to any special benefit to be conferred upon the payers of the tax. The taxes collected are all merged in the general revenue of the State to be applied for general public purposes. Thus, tax is a common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the family or in the case of an impartible estate where such sum has been paid out of the income of the holder of the estate belonging to the family." "10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included--...... (2) any sum received by an individual as a member of a Hindu undivided family, whore such sum has been paid out of the income of the family, or, in the case of any impartible estate, where such sum has been paid out of the income of the estate belonging to the family." A close examination of these provisions shows that only the sums received by an individual as a member of an undivided Hindu family which are paid out of the income o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were decided on almost similar facts. The appellant cannot derive any assistance from them. On the other hand, the Division Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in Rajkumar Lakshminarayan Bhanja Deo v. Commissioner of Income-tax goes against the appellant. In that case, maintenance allowance of Rs. 2,000 per month payable to the younger brother of the Ruler of Keonjhar was not exigible to income-tax under the Keonjhar Income-tax Regulation, 1938. After the merger of the Keonjhar State with the Province of Orissa with effect from January 1, 1948, the State Income-tax Regulations were repealed by virtue of section 7(1) of the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Act, 1949 (67 of 1949), because the Indian Income-tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
