LexCHANDRAKANT KRISHNARAO PRADHAN AND ANOTHER versus THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1901
·r1ie Cominiati~ntr
oJJn~-tax1
ft! odraa
v.
S.A.S.
JI arim~hu }{ adar
/{ idayatu l l ah J.
1961
A ugu1t JI.
108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
daily in onli.nary Jifo.
There is also equity (if
equitable considerat.ions can be taken into aocount
in a taxing Act) in giving earned income relief to
a person who has to pay tax on income whioh
belongs to another but which he has himself earned.
In our opinion, the section can only be read u
enacting that for purposes of earned income relief,
"such income" will be included which, though it is
the income of another person, has been earned by
the assessee, or, in the case of a firm, whore the
u.ssessee is a partner, by his being actively engaged
as part.ncr in the conduct of the business. The
wordH "where the assessee is a partner" must be
giv<'n dft>ct to, even when the income of the minor
or the wife is considered under the latter part, and
they also point to the same conclusion. In reading
the definition in this way, no violence is done to
the language of it. The condition that tho
asscssee must have worked actively as a partner
is thns applicable also to tho latter part of tho
rlefinition. In our opinion, the High Court waa
right in the answer which it gave.
The appeals foil, and are dismissed with costs.
Appeals di8missed.
CHA'NDRAKA.J.'{T KRISHNARAO PRADHAN
AND ANOTHER
v.
THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
AND OTHERS
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SunBA RAo,
:\I. HIDAYAT'CiLLAH, J.C. SH.AH and
RAGHUBAR DAYAr,, JJ.)
Cu~tom House .4.gent8-Lictncl-R'fllP,.s governin{l granU
tliere<if-1 alidily-Agent'a liability for •hart collection of cu.lama
dutie.!-Cmtam Hau•<
Agents
licensing
Rule8,
1960,
rr. 4, 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 8, 9\2) (p), JO (1) (C), 11, 15 (g), J5(k),
12, 17, 19, 22 Form• C. D.-Sea Ouslama Act, 1878 (8 of 1878),
j'·
as amended by Act 21of1955, ss.4, !1,39 (/), 202-Conalilulia•
'
of Jndit1, Aris. 19 (I)(g) 19 (6).
The petitioners were working as Dakils at New Qum>~
•
;•
'
~ S.C.:R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
109
H-0use, Bombay, under licences issued under s.202 of the Sea:
Customs Act, 1878. In 1955 by an amending Act, s. 202
was substituted by another section and by sub-s. (I) of s. 202
it was enacted: "no pe1Son shall act as an agent for the .tran-
sa:crlon of any business relating to the entrance or clearance of
vessel or the import or export of goods or baggage in any
cuitom house unless such person holds a licence granted in
this behalf
in accordance with the rules made under
sub-section (2)". By sub-s.(2) the Chief Customs-authority was
empowered to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the
provisicJns of the section. Section 4 provided that "when any
person was .... authorised by the owner of the goods to be his
agent in respect of such goods for all or any of the purpose,
of this Act .... such person shall, for such purposes, be deemed
to be the owner of such goods". The petitioners who, after
the enactment of the new s. 202, had to apply for licences to
be .granted in accordance with
the rules framed under
sub-s.(2), challenged the validity of certain of the rules on the
ground that they contravened Arts. 14 and 19 of the Cons-
titution of India and also that they were in excess of the rule-
making power conferred by s.202 (2). In particular, they.
questioned the validity or r. 12 under which inter alia the
agtnt was required to enter into a bond in Form C by which
he was made liable for short collection of customs duty under
s. 39 and also to furnish security which might be increased or
decreased by the Customs-collector.
He/,d : (I) that the rules in question though they were
headed as framed under s. 202 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878,
cannot be impugned on the ground that some of them go
beyond the special purposes of that 'ection and seek to further
some of the general purposes of other parts of the Act, since
the Chief ·custom• authority is also empowered under s. 9 of
the Act to make rules consistent with the Act "generally to
carry out the provisions of the Act."
(2) that rr. 4 and 8 under which the Customs-collector
could limit the number of licences to be granted at the Customs
House and applications could only be made if the Customs-
collector published
a notice inviting applications,
do not
contravene
Art. 19 of the Constitution, as they are only
derigned to advance public iriterest.
(3) that rr. 6(a) and 6(b) which require the appli-
cant to furExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.