DEWAN BAHADUR SETH GOPAL DAS MOHTA versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 21-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
.• 
J 
1 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
773 
to direct the issue of any of the writs the issue of which 
1s discretionary with this Court. When 
this position 
was 
put to Mr. Sen, the 
learned 
counsel for the 
petitioner, he very fairly, and, in our opm10n, rightly 
conceded that it was not possible for him to 
com~at 
this position. 
For the reasons given above this petition is bound to 
fail and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. 
Petition dismissed. 
DEWAN BAHADUR SETH GOPAL DAS MOHTA 
"· 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., s. R. DAS, 
GH?LAM HASAN, BHAGWATI 
and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
Co11stitution of 
India, Art. 32-Taxation on Income (Investi-
gation Commission) Act, 1947 (XXX of 1947) s. 5(1)-lnvestigation 
and Report by Commission in respect of profits made by assessee and 
·~ 
tax payable by him-Mutual. settlement 
between 
assessee 
and 
Government-Petition under Art. 32-Whether competent. 
The petitioner, a business man, was alleged to have 
made 
huge profits during the years of War and the Central Government 
acting under s. 5( 1) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Com-
mission) Act, 1947 (XXX of 1947) referred his case to the Investi-
gation 
Commission for 
investigation and report. 
During 
the 
pendency of the 
investigation 
the 
petitioner's 
application 
for 
settlement under the provisions of s. 8-A of Act XXX of 1947 was 
~ accepted by the Central Government and in pursuance thereof the 
tax was made payable 
by instalments and the 
claim for 
evaded 
income-tax was thus finally settled by mutual agreement. 
When 
the instalments in the sum of Rs. 4 lacs odd still remained due the 
petitioner preferred the. present petition under Art. 
32 of the 
Constitution alleging that the entire proce~dings under Act XXX 
of 1947, were illegal, ultra vires, void and unconstitutional, that the 
Income-tax authorities were not competent to recover the amount 
due from him and that ss. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act were ultra vires 
as they infringed Arts. 14, 19(1) (£) and 31 of the Constitution. 
• 
Held, that the petition under 
Art. 32 was not competent as 
whatever had already been paid or whatever was still recoverable 
from the petitioner was being recovered on the basis of the 
1954 
Laxmanappa 
HanurMntaaPfia 
v. 
Union •f India 
Mahajan C. ]. 
1954 
Oclo6w 2 1. 
1954. 
Seth!Gopal Diis 
Mohta 
v. 
Union of India 
and .A.1wt!ur 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
settlement between him and the Government. 
Article 32 is not 
intended for relief against the voluntary actions of a person. 
Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastn' (A.LR. 
1954 S.C. 545) referred to. 
• ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 315 of 1954. 
Petition under 
article 32 
of the 
Constitution for 
enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
H. f. Umrigar, Narain Andfry, f. B. 
Dadachanji 
and Rajinder Narain for the petitioner. 
M. C. Setalvad, 
Attoreny-General for 
India, and 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India ( G. N. Joshi, 
Portis A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with them) for the 
respondents. 
1954. October 21. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J.-The. petitioner in this 
matter is a resident of Akola in the State of Madhya 
Pradesh and carries on business in various lines, i.e., 
oil 
mills, banking, money lending, etc. It is alleged 
that during the war years he made huge profits but 
evaded payment of tax. 
In the year 1948 the Central 
Government, acting under section 5(1) of the Taxation 
on Income 
(Investigation 
Commission) 
Act, 
1947, 
referred his case to the Investigation 
Commission for 
investigation and report, in respect of the profits made 
by him during the period 
commencing 
with 
1st of 
January, 1939, and ending on 31st of December, 1947. 
The Commission, after investigation, reported on the 
28th of February, 
1951, 
that 
the 
income 
of the 
petitioner 
concealed 
and withheld from taxation was 
in the sum of 
Rs. 27,25,363 and the 
tax 
payable by 
him amounted to Rs. 18,44,949. 
During the pendency of the investigation the peti-
tioner applied 
for settlement under the provisions of 
section 8-A of Act XXX of 1947. This application was 
forwarded along with the report by the Commission to 
the Central Government. 
In the settlement application 
the applicant proposed that he was prepared to pay the 
sum of Rs. 18,44 ,949 as under : 
-
,-t 
-
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
On or before 25-6-1951-Rs. 3,44,949 
On or before
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.