INCOME-TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER, BOMBAY versus THE SIMPLEX MILLS LTD., BOMBAY

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 162 · Decided: 15-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
M,,.,. 81111 
l!/t<lriril.'I s-d 
v. 
s .. 1.i.r. w • .u.., 
c.11 .. (// Si/I; 
MU/s LU. 
HU/ay•lwlW., I. 
J9fl 
Nootmln, J 5. 
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
such tem1s and conditions as the Board may from 
time to time fix having regard to the nature and 
geographical position of the supply and for purposes 
for which it is required without showing undue pre-
ference to any person. 
Mr. Vishwanath Sastri 
contended that a dispute might arise if the Board 
unreasonably refused to supply electricity to a pri-
vate consumer or showed undue preference to some-
one else and such a dispute might be taken to arbitra-
tion under s. 76. 
I do not wish to pronounce any 
opinion upon this matter because the present dispute 
is not a dispute of this character. For these reasons 
I am of opinion that the Additional District Judge, 
Bangalore, was right in granting the declaration 
sought by the appellants. 
I would, therefore, set 
aside the order of the High Court and restore that 
of the Additional District Judge, Bangalore, with 
costs on the respondents throughout. One hearing 
fee. 
Appeals allowed. 
INCOME-TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER, BOMBAY 
fl. 
THE SIMPLEX MILLS LTD., BOMBAY 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. 
SARKAR, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
I11.C0111£ Taz-ReMsessment-Validity-Admnce payment of 
tax found refundable in part on M•mme11l-Paymenl of l.tgal 
intereal ta M8esBee-Amendmenl of Tatu 
redvcing amount-
Rtcovery of excess-Indian Income-tax Acl, 1922 (11of1922), 
ss. 34, 18 A (1), (6), (8), (11). 
The assessee respondent made advance payment of tu 
under s. 18 A(!) of the Income-tax Act for the asscumctn 
2 S.C.il. 
SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S 
163 
year 1952-53. A part of tl!c .amount paid was found refund-
able on regu1af assessment on August 30, 1952. On September 
11, 1952, a sum of ~. 14,720-14-0.was paid to the resp<>ndent 
as interest under s. 18 A (5), on the amount refundable as it 
then stood. The sub-section was amended on May 24, 1953, 
with retrospective ·cfl't:(o.t from April 1, 1952. Under the law 
as it stood after the amendment the assessee was entitled to 
Rs. 9,404-5-0 and no more. The Income-tax Officer issued a 
notice under s. 34 (I) (b) proposing to recover the excess paid 
by way of l'el\"sessment. on the grounds that the respondent had 
been under-asSessed. and also that it had been allowed excessive 
relief. By an ordCI' made by him based on the latter ground, 
he directed recovefy of the excess. The respondent moved the 
High C.ourt under Art. 226 of the Constitution and that court 
set aside the order. 
Held, that s. 34 of the Act had no application. None of 
the conditions for its applicability had been fulfilled in the 
present case. 
The case was not one of under-assessment but really one 
of over-assessment though provisional for more had been paid 
in advance as tax than was found payable. Neither was the 
case one of grant. of excessive relief for the intcreat paid by the 
Government on the amount paid by the asses'lCe in excess of 
what was found to be due, was not a grant of relief to the 
assessec at all. Excess payment of such interest cannot, there-
fore, be a case where excess relief has been allowed to an 
asscsscc. 
Sub-sections (8) and (11) of s. 18 A deal with interest 
payable·by an assessce and do not show that interest payable 
by the Government under s. 18 A (5) is part of tax payable by 
the as!cssce so as to lead to a contention that excess allowance 
of such interest was' in substance grant of excess rdief to the 
asscssec. 
It could not also be said that the interest payable by the 
Government to an asscssec for tax paid in advance was a tax 
paid by the assessce. 
M. Oloockalingam 
v. · Outnmissioner of lncome-ta:t, 
Madras, [1963] Supp. I S.C.R. 599, explained and distin-
guished. 
Cxvu. APPELLATE jURISDlCTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 165of1962. 
lHl 
f-taO,#ur 
... 
Sim;lu Miii• Lli., 
ll•mlc,i 
1962 
i-.. r .. OJictr 
y. 
Siiw}f,. Milh Lid., 
a.ta, 
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] SUPP. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment 
and order dated March 11, 1959, of the Bombay 
High Court in Appeal No. 60 of 1958. 
N. D. Karkhanis and R. N. Saohthey. for the 
appellants. 
R. J. Kol,ah, J.B. Dadachanji, 0. 0. Mathur 
and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent. 
1962. November 15. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SARKAR, J.-This appeal is entirely without 
substance. It arises out of an application under Art. 
226 of the Constitution mad

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