LexINCOME-TAX OFFICER, ALLEPPEY versus M. C. PONNOOSE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, ALLEPPEY v. M. C. PONNOOSE & ORS. July 28, 1969 [J. C. SHAH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, V. R.\MAsWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 2(44)-Definition of Tax Recovery Otfie<r in leCtion aniended bys. 1 of Fitwnce Act 1963-Noti/icc.tion under uction extending definition-Certain revenue. officials including Taluka 'lehsUdar brought within definition-Such Notification being executive act cannot be A given retrospective effect-Subordinate legislation cannot ordinarily be C retrospective. By a notification dated August 14, 1963, issued by the Stale o[ Kerala the ·raluk.a l'chsildar was authorised 10 exercise the powers of a Tax Re-- covery Officer under the Income-tax. Act, 1961. The notification was made effective from April J 962. The shares of the assessee, who was in <>rrears of his income-tax, were attached by the Taluka ·rchsildar after April 1. 1962 but prior to August 14. 1963. A petition under Art. 226 of the Constitu· D tion was filed challenging the action of the Tchsildar. The High Court held that the notification empowering the Tehsihlar to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer with relrospective effect was invalid and conse- quently quashed the attachments. l'his view was affirmed by the Division Bench in appeal. Dismissing the appeal by the Revenue, this Court, HELD : 'fhe courts will not ascribe retrospcctivity to new laws affecting righlc; unlc.\s by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intenticn of the Jegislature. The Parliament can dele&atc its legislative power \\'ithin the recognised limits. Where any rule or regula- tion is made by any person or authority to whom such powers have been delegated by the legislature it may or may not be possil,Ie to make the same so as to give retrospective operation. It \vill depend on the langu· .~c employed in the statutory provision which may in express terms or by necessary implication empower the authority concerned to make a rule or regulation with retrospective effect. But where no such lan~age is to be found it has been held by the courts that the person or authority exercising ~ubordiaale legislative functions rule, regulation or bye-law which can operate \lr'ith retrospective effect. [681 F-Hl E F It can hardly be said that the impugned notification promulgates any rule, regulation or bye·law all of which have a definite signification. The excrci .. of the power under sub-cl. (ii) of cl. ( 44) of s. 2 of the Income-tax G Act, 1961 is more of an executive than a legislative act. [682 R] Dr. lndramani Pyare/al Gupta v. W. R. Nathu & Ors. (1963] I S.C.R. 721, Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. G11tta Mill Workers [1953] S.C.R. 439. followed. Pliil/ips v. Eyre, 40 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Q.B. 28 at p. 37, referred to. Modi Food Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales-tax U.P. A.I.R. H [19561 All. 35, India Refineries Ltd. v. State of M,\'sore, A.l.R. 1960 Mys. 326 and General S. Shivdev Singh & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. [1959] P.L.R. 514. approve~ I I A B c I. T .o. v. :M:. c. PONNOOSE (Grover, !. ) 679 By saying that new definition of "Tax Recovery Officer" substituted by s. 1 6f the Finance Act, ·1963. "shall be and shall be deemed ahvays to have been substituted" was to niake the ne\V definition a part of. the Jncome Tax Act from the date it was enacted. The legal fiction could not be extended beyond its legiitimate field and the aforesaid words occurring in s. 4 of the Finance Act, 1963 could not be construed to embody confer- ment of ·a power for retrospective authorisation by the State ~n the absence of any express provision in s. 2( 44) of the Income-Tax Act itself. [682 G] B. S. Vadera etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [1968] 3 S.C.R. 575, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 942 and 943 of 1966. Appeals by specilll leave from the judgment and order dated June 18, 1965 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 139 and 140 of 1964. Jagdish Swarup, ·Solicitor-General, T. A. Ramachandran and B. D. Sharma, for the appellant (in both the appeals). D S. T. Desai, M. C. Chacko, A. K. Verma, !. B. Dadaclzanji, and 0. C. Mathur, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 942 of 1966). A. G. Pudissery, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (in C.A. No. 942 of 1966). E J. B. Dadachanji, for respondents .Nos. 1 and 2 (in C.A. No. F G 943 of 1966). A. G. Pudissery, for respondents Nos. 7
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.