Southern Roadways Private Ltd. v. Union of India and Another

Sou"'4m RoadWt11• J.-This is a petition by the asaessee p,;-Ltd. KAPUR, v. under Art. 3:! of the Constitution challenging the Union of Ind i• constitutionality of the second proviso to s. 10(2) (vi-b) of Income tax Act introduced by The Taxa-K¥UrJ. tion Laws (Amendment) Act (28 of 1960). The relevant section with the proviso is as follows :-

S. 10(1) "The tax shall be payable by an s,ssessee under the head "Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation" in respect of the profits or gains of any business, pro-fession or vocation carried on by him.

(2) Such profit• or uains shall be com· puted after making the followin~ allowances, namely: ............................................... ............ .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... ' .

. . . .

(vi-b) in respect, of machinery or plant being nPw, which has been installed after the 3 lst day of March, 1954, and which is wholly used for the purposeR of the business carried on by the assessee, a sum by way of develop-ment rebate in respect of the year of installa-tion equivalent to twer.ty-five per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant to the assessee :

Provided that no allowance under this clause shall be m'lde unless the particulars prescribed for the purpose of clause (vi) have been furnished by the assessee in respect of such machinery or plant;

Provided further that no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of any machinery or plant which consist of office appliances or road transport vPhiclPs."

The petitioner is a limited company with its registered office at ;\fadm·qi in the Rtate of llfadras 1962 which owna a. fleet of buses a.nd lorries and carriell ,%1dlu,. Bea·iwllJ' .. on the business of transport In res1wot of !IBRl'R~·

PriNJI L1d. ment year I !!60-61 it cla.imoo a. development rPbate

v. on all its plants and machiner.v including buPines.q. U11Um o/ lntlia

The Income tax Officer diHallowed tho olnim of K•pur .J. rebate on transport vehicles under the proviso

above quoted and computed the tax payable with-out such rebatfl. ft was contonderl on behalf of the petitioner that the proviso oft'cnrls Art. 14 in that it discriminates betweon machinery which is office appliance or road transport vehicl<'s and other kind of machinery. It is difficult to accept such a contention because there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the legislBture from r:hoosing thp, object of taxation from 11mong~t various classes of machinery for the purpose of giving d<'vefopment rebate. Tho Constitution rloes not prohibit any sueh cla.ssifica.tion which has l>l'en ma.de in the present case.

The petition is wholly without merit and is thcr1Jforc dismiHSed a.nd the rule is discharged. The p••titioncr will pny tho costi! of the respondent. P1iifi(Jn d1'.'IT11i ... 'll'd.

J!u;;t P. V. RAGHAVA REDDI AND AXOTHER

v.

('0lJUIS810XER OF INCOME-TAX

( ll. P. S1~HA, C .. J., ,J. L. KAPt:a, M. HrnAYA·1..-1.1 .. w, J. C. S11.\11 nncl .r. R. Mn.>1101.KAH, J.T.) Nou-n ... i1/1111" f"IH1i/"111.1f·. ro111111i"si()11 d1tf' /u-ff1-rr:1•1-1! l1.11 /11rliut,fl1m 11111l 7r-tirl dir1cl/.11 ur tl1rfJu~1/I oll1P.1'-" "' th·· 11011.-1·,,,.;_ ,/1 111 r'''"J"""!I --1/ ~lrtlflf(jr!J fllj,..1i,l-/1t1·r1111r, ;J 1'tr."i1.'r,/ in t,1.1·•111/1' ,,.,.,-itJJry--/111/ian /11rf1111•--fo.r:A.ct, 1922 (ll 11/ JC122),,.,.. 4(1J(t,), ·I! f)(r), 43.

The-appellant i\ a firn1 '"°·hich \\'as ~oin~ hu~incss ~11 mica. To negotiate for ordrrs and I•• hancllc lt-s other affa~r" th<- appell..ant engaged a company in Japan ,vliich 1~ adn111-tcdly a "non .. rtllii<lcnt" c<1mpany. By agTr.c1ncnt l)ClWcr.n tl1c