TMI Blog1960 (9) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arose any question of condoning a refusal by an inferior tribunal to carry out the directions given to that tribunal by a superior tribunal in the undoubted exercise of its appellate powers, on the ground that the order of the superior tribunal was wrong. Appeal allowed. - Civil Appeal No. 407 of 1956 - - - Dated:- 2-9-1960 - Judge(s) : J. C. SHAH., K. C. DAS GUPTA., M. HIDAYATULLAH., N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR., S. K. DAS JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by S. K. DAS, J.--- This is an appeal on a certificate under article 133 of the Constitution. The short question for decision is whether the learned Judicial Commissioner of Bhopal rightly dismissed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution made by the Bhopal Sugar Industries Limited, hereinafter referred to as the appellant company, praying for the issue of an appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus to compel the Income-tax Officer, Bhopal, respondent herein, to carry out certain directions given by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, to the said officer in an appeal preferred by the appellant company from an order of assessment made against it by the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 29,360, which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed to be deducted from the total income of the appellant company. Not satisfied with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the appellant company preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, and claimed that the market value of the sugarcane grown on its farms should be Rs. 1-13-0 per maund and not Rs. 1-7-9. There was no dispute before the Tribunal as to the agricultural expenses, and the question which the Tribunal had to decide related to the market value of 6,78,490 maunds of sugarcane grown on the appellant company's own farms. After referring to rule 23 of the Income-tax Rules and certain other matters, the Tribunal said : " We are, therefore, inclined to think that ' market ' within the meaning of rule 23 is not the centres but the factory where the assessee company manufactures sugar. This being the position in order to find out the market value, we have to add the transport charges from the centres to the factory. We were told that the transport charges amounted to Rs. 0-4-9 per maund. We have not been able to verify this figure. In our opinion, therefore, the sugarcane produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be Rs. 9,28,431. Against this by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the value of the farm cane was taken at Rs. 10,07,132 and thus the excess allowance of Rs. 78,701 has already been allowed to you. Thus as the market value of the agricultural produce does not in any case exceed Rs. 1-7-9 as held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the result of the Tribunal's order as per their finding given in paragraph 8 of the order results in no relief being given to you." It is worthy of note here that while the Tribunal had directed the respondent to ascertain the average transport charges from the centres to the factory, the respondent referred to the cost of transportation from the farms to the factory. Clearly enough, the respondent misread the direction of the Tribunal and failed to carry it out. He proceeded on a basis which was in contravention of the direction of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the appellant company moved the Judicial Commissioner, Bhopal, then exercising the powers of a High Court for that area, for the issue of a writ to compel the respondent to carry out the directions given by the Tribunal. The learned Judicial Commissioner found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case, it was open to him to say that the order of the Tribunal was wrong and, therefore, there was no injustice in disregarding that order. As we have said earlier, such a view is destructive of one of the basic principles of the administration of justice. In fairness to him it must be stated that learned counsel for the respondent did not attempt to support the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner on the ground that no manifest injustice resulted from the refusal of the respondent to carry out the directions of a superior tribunal. He conceded that even if the order of the tribunal was wrong, a subordinate and inferior tribunal could not disregard it ; he readily recognised the sanctity and importance of the basic principle that a subordinate tribunal must carry out the directions of a superior tribunal. He argued, however, that the order of the Tribunal was unintelligible and the respondent did his best to understand it according to his light. This argument advanced on behalf of the respondent appears to us to be somewhat disingenuous. We find no difficulty in understanding the order of the Tribunal ; it directed the respondent " to ascertain the average transport charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
