D.R.Madhavakrishnaiah v. The Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore.

Palanjali Sajtri PATANJALI SASTRJ C. J.-These two connected

C.J.

appeals arise out of applications made to the High Court of Judicature at Bangalore under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, Bangalore, to assess the appellant to income-tax and super-tax on his income accruing prior to April 1, 1950, in the State of Mysore and praying for the issue of appropriate writs in that behalf. The applications were dismissed by the court and leave to appeal having been refused, the appellant has brought these appeals by special leave of this court.

It is a matter of admission that the officer making the ossessments was an officer appointed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and that in making such assessments he was applying the income-tax law in force in the State of Mysore down to the end of the year of account 1948-49. The officer was exer~ising jurisdiction in the State by virtue of the proviso to section 13 of the Indian Finance Act, 1950, which reads as follows ;- Repeals and Savings.-(!) If immediately before the lst day of April, 1950, there is in force in any Part B State other than J ammu and Kashmir or in Manipur, Tripura or Vindhya Pradesh ·or in the me:cged territory of Cooch-Behar any law relating to income-tax or .super-tax or tax on profits. of business, that law shall cease to have effect except for the purposes of the levy, assessment and collection of income-tax and super-tax in respect of any period not included in the previous year for the purposes of assessment under the Indian · Income-tax Act, 1922, for the year ending on· the 31st day of March, 1951, or for any subsequent year, or, as the case may be, the levy, assessment and collection of the tax on profits of business for any J953 chargeable accounting period ending on or before the .D.R. 31st day of March, 1949 : Madhtna~

Provided that any reference in any such law to an krishn11iah v. officer, authority, tribunal or court shall be construed Thi Income-tax as a reference to the corresponding officer, authority, Officer, Bangalore. tribunal or court appointed or constituted under the said Act, and if any question arises . as to who such Patanj11li S•stri .. C;J. corresponding officer, authority, tribunal or court is, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final. ... "

It is contended that the proviso is ultra vires and void as the Union Parliament had no power to make a law authorising auy officer or authority or Tribunal or Court appointed or constituted under the Indian In-come-tax Act, 1922, to levy, assess and collect income-tax and super-tax payable under the Mysore law prior · to the commencement of the Constitution of India.

The contention is based on two grounds : namely, firstly, on general constitutional principles the Union 'Parliament had no power to make a law having retros- . pective operation with reference to the pre-Constitu-tion period ; and s~condly, the Union Parliament is prohibited by article· 277 of the Constitution by necessary implication from making a law grafting on the Mysore income-tax law the machinery for assessment and collection provided under the Indian ·Income-tax Act, 1922, for purposes of assessment · thereunder.

So far as the first ground is concerned, the case is governed by the judgment just delivered in the Rajasthan case [Union of India v. Madan Gopal '](abra (') l It remains only to deal with the second ground based on article 277. That article reads "thus :

, . "Ally taxes, duties, cesses or fees which, immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, were . ,J,ieing lawfully levied by the Government of any State :,,or.by, al!y municipality or other local authority arc ·' body . for, the purposes · of the.. ~tate, municipality, , dist~i~t-~~0,pther I01=~l ,.,area, .•• may, . notwithstanding,. ~hat

( 1) Infra. P 54'. .. '

1953 those taxes, duties, cesses, or fees are mentioned in the D.R. Union List, continue to be levied and to be applied to Madhava-the same purposes until provision to the contrary is luisJmaioJ

v. made by Parliament by law."

Tiu Income-tax

O.ffiar, It was urged that, inasmuch as the article authorises, Bangalore.

among others, the income-tax and super-tax which Palatdali Sasfri was being lawfully levied by the Government of

C.J.

Mysore prior to the commencement of the Constitution to be levied and to be applied to the same purposes even after the commencement of the Constitution until provision to the contrary is made by Parliament by law, and no such law was made by Parliament till April 1, 1950, when the Indian Finance Act, 1950, was enacted, it followed by necessary implication, the Mysore law of income-tax must be applied for the levy, assessment and collection of such taxes and, as the legislative power conferred on Parliament by article 245 is subject to the provisions of the Constitu-tion including article 277, Parliament had no power to legislate, grafting officers and authorities appointed under the Indian Income-tax Act, on the Mysore State, for the levy, assessment and collection of the tax under the State law. We see no force in this argu-ment. While article 277 undoubtedly authorises the continued levy of taxes lawfully levied by the Govern-ment of the State before the commencement of the Constitution and their app!ication to the same purposes as before, even after the Constitution came into force, there is nothing in the article 10. warrant any implication that such taxes should continue to be levied, assessed and collected by the same State authorities as before the Constitution. As the High Court rightly pointed out, it would obviously have been inconvenient and unnecessary to have oflircers appointed under the Mysore Income-tax Act continuing to function only in respect of the earlier assessment years side by side with ofliccn appointed under the Indian Income-tax Act also functioning in the State for assessments subsequent to April 1, 1950. Both as a measure of economy and witli a view to smooth and efficient lIWl3gement, ~ was obviously necessary and desirable that the change-1953 over frorri the Mysore income-tax law to the Indian D:R. Income-tax Act should be in the way provided by sec-Madhtwa-tion 13 of the Indian Finance Act, 1950. We find krishnaiak v. nothing in article 277 of the Constitution to preclude The Income-tax Parliament making a law providing for the levy and Offim, I Bangalore. collection of income-tax and super-tax under the Mysore Act through authorities appointed under the PataT/jali Sastri C.J. Indian Income-tax Act. Accordingly, we hold that the Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Cirde, Banga-lore, had jurisdiction to assess the appellant to income-tax and super-tax in respect of the income of the period prior to the commencement of the Constitution.

The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.

Appeals dismissed.

Agent for the appellant : M. S. K. Sastri.

Agent for the respondent : G. H. Rajadhyaksha.

THE UNION OF INDIA 1953

tJ. Dec. 16.

MADAN GOPAL KABRA.

(PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN,

S. R. DAs, GHULAM HASAN and

JAGANNAD 0 HADAS JJ.J

Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) as amended by Finance Act (XXV of 1950), s. 3-Taxable territories-Meaning of-Section 2 (14-A) proviso ( b) (i) and (iii)-Income accruing to assessee in State of Rajasthan in 1949-50-Liability to income-tax-Sections 3 and 4 of Indian Income-tax Act and s. 2 of Finance Act and proviso to the amended s. 2 (14-A)-Constitution of Indian, Arts. 245 and 246 read with entry 82 of List I of Seventh Schedule-Parliament com-petent to make laws with respect to taxes for the tvho/e of lndia-Constitution competent to make laws having retrospective operation for pre-Constitution period.

Respondent was· residing and carrying on business in the District of Jodhpur in Rajasthan, a Part B State. His income arising therein during the accounting year 1949-50 was sought to be assessed to income-tax for the year 1950-51 under the Indian !nCQme-tax Act as amended by the Indian Finance Act. He presented a petition under art. 226 to the High Court praying