D.R.MADHAVAKRISHNAIAH versus THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE.

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 537 · Decided: 16-12-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
s:c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
537 
D. · R. MAD HA V AKRISHNAIAH 
v. 
THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE. 
f PATANJALI SASTRI 
CHAND MAHAJAN, 
s. R. DAS, GHULAM 
C.J., MEHR 
HASAN and J AGANN AD HAD AS JJ.] 
FJl)(;nce Act (XXV of 1950), s. 13, proviso--Validity thcreof-
Constitution of Indian, Art. 277. 
The assessee challenge<l the 
jurisdiction 
of 
the 
Income-tax 
Officer, Special Survey 
Circle, 
Bangalore, 
to 
assess 
income-tax 
and Super-tax on his inco1ne accruing prior to April I, 1950, in the 
State of Mysore, on the ground that the proviso to s. 13 of the 
Indian Finance Act, 1950, 
by virtue of which he was 
exercising 
his power was ultra vires and void as the Parliament had no power 
to make a law authorising any officer appointed under the Indian 
Income-tax Act to levy 
tax under the Mysore law prior to the 
Constitution. 
It was 
contended (i) that on general constitutional principles 
the Union Parliament had no power to make a law having retros-
pective effect with reference 
to pre-Constitution 
period, (ii) that 
the Parliament was also prohibited 
by 
Art. 277 
from making a 
law authorising such officers as -in the present case 
to act in the 
S,t.1te of Mysore : 
Held, (repelling the contentions) 
(i) that the Parliament had 
such power vide the judgment delivered in Case No. 296 of 1951, (ii) 
that while Art. 277 authorises the continued levy of taxes lawfully 
levied by the Government of the State before the commencement 
of the Constitution and their application to the same purposes 
as before, even after the Constitution came 
into 
force, 
there 
is nothing in the article 
to warrant any 
implication 
that such 
taxes should 
continue to be levied,. assessed and collected by the 
same 
State 
authorities as 
before the Constitution and there is 
nothing in Art. 277 to preclude Parliament making a law providing 
for -the levy and collection of income-tax and super-tax 
under the 
Mysore Act through authorities appointed 
under the Indian In-
come-tax Act. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
Juruso1CT10N : 
Civil 
Appeals 
Nos. 209 and 210 of 1953. 
Appeals by 
special leave against the Judgment 
and Orders dated 4th April, 1953, of the High Court 
of Judicature of Mysore at Bangalore (Medapa C. J· 
and Vasudevamurthy J.) 
in Civil 
Petitions Nos. 20 
and 21. of 1953. 
5--94 S. C. lndia/59 
Dec. IG 
1953 
1953 
D.R. 
A1adhava-
krishnaiah 
v. 
The income-tax 
Officer, 
Bangalore. 
Palanjali Sajtri 
C.J. 
538 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
M. Ramaswamy, Senior Advocate, 
(B. 
Neelakanta, 
with him) for the appellant. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, 
(Porus 
A. Mehta, with him) for the respondent. 
1953. December 16. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
PATANJALI 
SASTRJ 
C. 
J.-These 
two 
connected 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.