LexA.THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR versus M. VENKITACHALAM.POTTI AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J '( '
1955
Willie {W.1liam)
Sl1m9
.v.
The Stattof
Madhya Pradesh
Imam J.
1955
December 20.
- 1196 :
, SUPREME· COURT· REPORTS
.· [1955]
obeyed Contravention oC.· its . provisions are unneces-
sary and neither the . prosecution nor the Courts of
trial should . ignore -'its. provisions in the hope that
they might find shelter under sections 535 and 537 of
the · Code. , Where the · contravention is
substantial
and a retrial. becomes necessary, public time is wasted
and the accused ·is · put to unnecessary harassment
and expense.
.
-
. . .
I agree that the appellant's conviction be altered
from section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to 304 of
the Indian Penal Code and · that · he be sentenced · to
J
five years' - rigorous imprisonment .
.
'
' .
-
',
A. THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR
v.
M. VENKITACHALAM.POTTI AND ANOTHER
[S. R.
(with connected appeal)
DAS,
AcnNG
C.J,
VIVIAN BosE,
J AGANNADIIADAS and B. P. S1NHA JJ.]
BHAGWATI,
Constitution
of India-Article 14-Travancore Taratioh
on
Income (Investigatian Commissian) Act, 1124 (Act XIV. of 1124),
s. 5(1)-Whether ultra vires the·Constitution -Read along with s.
47(1) of Travancore Income-tar Act, 1121 (Act· XXlll of 1121)-
High
Court-Jurisdiction-Article 226 of the Constitution-Writ
Petition against authorised Official-Appointet! under s. 6_ of the Tra·
vancore· Act (XIV of 11'24)-Investigation Commission-Whether
competent under the provisions of the Travancore Act XIV of 1124
to inv~stigate cases_ not referred to it ~y Government.
· The petitioncr...:..:i native 0£ Qllilon ·within the Travancore State
-'-had been assesied' to income-tax for the years 1942 and 1943, the
final orders in his assessment having been passed by· the Chief Rcvc·
nue authority of Travancore in December )946 and November 1946
r~spectively.
Travan~orc ~Taxation on
lnc'?mc -(Investigation _<;om-
mission) Act, 1124. {Act XIV of 1124) modelled on.the Indian Act
XXX of 1947,.was passed by the Travancore Legislature, to provide
for an investigation .into matters r,elating·to taxation on inc6me. In
July 1949, 'the United State ofTravancore and -Cochin was brwght
into existence as , a result of i.Iltegration · hetweeri · the two States. All
existing la\vS of Travancorc were to contin_ue in force by virtue of
Ordinance I of 1124 which was later enacted as Act VI of 1125. In,
November· 1949 the Government of the United State: of Travanc~re-
•
(
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1197
Cochin issued orders under s. 5(1) of the Travancore Act XIV of
1124 referring the cases of the petitioner for the years
1942
and
1943 (called Evasion Cases Nos. 1 & 2 of 1125) for investigation by
the Travancore Income-Tax Investigation Commission.
Before the
Commission could make its report the Constitution of
India came
into force and the United State of Travancore-Cochin became a part
of India (Part B State) and the Travancore Act XIV of 1124 was con-
tinued in force until altered, amended or repealed by a competent
authority.
In April 1950 Parliament passed
Act XXXIII of
1950
whereby Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, (Act
XXX of 1947) was extended to Travancore-Cochin and the law of
Travancore corresponding to Act XXX of 1947 was to continue in
force with certain modifications. In October
1951,
a
notification
issued by the Indian Investigation Commission appointed Respon-
dent No. 1 as an authorised official under s. 6 of Travancore Act XIV
of 1124 read with Act XXXIII of 1950. Respondent No. 1 sent a
copy of that notification to the petitioner on 21st November,
1951
for his information and further intimated to him that the investiga-
tion proposed to be conducted will not be confined to the year> 1942
and 1943 but that it would be necessary for him to investigate the
petitioner's income for the period from 1940 to the
last completed
assessment year.
The petitioner filed a writ petition in
the
Travancore High
Court against Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 (Indian In-
come-Tax Investigation Commission)
for a writ of prohibition or
any other writ prohibiting the Respondents from holding an enquiry
into the cases registered as Evasion Cases Nos. 1 & 2 of 1125 or from
holding an investigation into the income of the petitioner from the
year 1940 to the last completed assessment year.
The Travancore
High Court held that the Respondent No. 2 had all the powers that
the Travancore Commission had under Travancore AExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.