DEVANAGERE COTTON MILLS LTD. DEVANAGERE versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 24-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I96I 
March 24. 
556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
DEVANAGERE COTTON MILLS LTD. 
DEVANAGERE 
v. 
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA 
AND ANOTHER 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
J. c. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) 
Cotton Gess-Assessment-Notice by Deputy Commissioner-
Validity-Collector, Meaning of-Interpretation of Statute-Indian 
Cotton Cess Act, r923 (r4 of r923), ss. 2(a), 7-General Clauses 
Act, r897 (ro of r897), s.-2(II). 
· 
The appellants declined to carry out the requisition by the 
Deputy Commissioner to submit certain returns on the ground 
that under 'the Indian Cotton Cess Act, r923, which Act became 
applicable to the State of Mysore by the Part B States Laws 
Act, r95r, the Collector alone could assess the cess and the 
Deputy Commissioner not being a "Collector" within the mean-
ing of the Act and not being an officer appointed by the Central 
Government to perform the duties of the Collector under the 
Act, the demand for return was "unconstitutional", 
The case 
of the appellant was that the General Clauses Act, i897, was 
not extended by the Part B States Laws Act, r95r, to the State 
of Mysore, and, therefore, the definition of "Collector" under 
the General Clanses Act could not be requisitioned in aid to 
interpret the expression "Collector" used in the Act. 
Held, that the effect of s. 3 of the General Clauses Act, 
i897, was to incorporate it as it were an interpretation section 
in all the Central Acts and Regulations made after the com-
mencement of the General Clauses Act. Whenever a Central 
Act or Regulation made after March II, r897, was enacted, the 
General Clauses Act became. statutoril)I a part thereof and by 
its own force applied to the mterpretat10n of every such enact-
ment. 
Its vitality did not depend upon any territorial exten-
sion. 
Section z(a) of the Indian Cotton Cess Act, r923, does not 
really give the definition of "Collector", and for determining 
who the Collector under the Act is, one has to go to the General 
Clauses Act. 
CrVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 89 of 1960 . 
• 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 
12, 1957, of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition 
No. 15 of 1956. 
J 
,. 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
557 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, V. L. 
' 96' 
N arasimhamoorty, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Devanagm cotton 
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellants. 
Mills Ltd. 
R. Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen, for the respon-
Devanagere 
dents. 
v. 
The Deputy Com~ 
1961. March 24. The Judgment of the Court was missione" Chit>a-
delivered by 
du,ga <>· Anothor 
SHAH, J.-With a view to enable him to assess cot-
ton cess payable by the appellants under the Indian 
Cotton Cess Act, 1923-hereinafter called the Act-
the Deputy Commissioner, 
District Chitradurga, 
Mysore State purporting to exercise powers under s. 6 
of the Act called upon the managing agents of the 
appellants by letter dated January 13, 1956, to submit 
in the prescribed form a statement showing the total 
quantity of cotton consumed or processed in the fac-
tory. The appellants declined to carry out the requi-
sition and filed a petition in the High Court of Mysore 
for a writ of mandamus, prohibition or other appro-
priate writ, direction or order restraining the Deputy 
Commissioner, Chitradurga and the State of Mysore 
from "collecting assessments under the Indian Cotton 
Cess Act XIV of 1923" in enforcement of the order 
dated January 13, 1956. 
The sole ground urged in support of the petition 
was that the appellants were bound to furnish returns 
under the Act to the Collector who alone could assess 
the cess, and the Deputy Commissioner not being a 
"Collector" within the meaning of the Act and not 
being an officer appointed by the Central Government 
to perform the duties of the Collector under the Act, 
the demand for returns was "unconstitutional". The 
High Court rejected the petition and against that 
order, this appeal is preferred with certificate of fitness 
granted by the High Court. 
The area in which the mill of the appellants is situ-
ate was originally part of the Indian State of Mysore. 
The State of Mysore became a Part B State within 
the Union of India on the promulgation of the Consti-
tution on January 26, 1950. The Act was one of the 
many enactments of the Indian Legislature applied 
Shah J. 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
196I 
to the State of Mysore by the "Part B States Laws 
D 
-

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