MAHANTH RAMSW AROOP DAS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 11-01-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
3 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
405 
the impugned Resolutions were ultra vires and should 
I96' 
be quashed. 
. 
Dr. Akshaibar Lal 
In the result, the appeals are allowed. 
Resolut10ns 
v. 
Nos. 90, 94 to 96 and 99 to 102 dated May 15, 1960, of Vice-Cilancellor, 
the Executive Council of the Banaras Hindu Univer-
Banaras Hindu 
sity are quashed, and an appropriate writ or writs 
Univmity 
shall issue to the respondents to that effect. The Hidayat1tllah J. 
respondents shall pay the costs of these appeals, as also 
of the High Court. 
Only one set of hearing fee here 
and in the High Court shall be allowed. 
Appeals allowed. 
MAHANTH RAMSW AROOP DAS 
1). 
THE STATE OF BIHAR. 
(J. L. KAPUR, M. HrnAYATULLAH and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Agricultural Income-tax-Estate in management of Court 
Receiver-Owner if liable to be assessed to tax for such period- -Bihar 
Agricultural Income-tax Act, XXXII of r948, ss. 2, cl. (m), 3 
and IJ. 
The appellant was the Mahant of the Asthal Estate in Bihar 
which was in the management of a Receiver appointed by the 
Civil Court in a suit relating to the estate. On appeal the question 
that arose for decision in this Court was whether the appellant-
Mahant was liable to be assessed under the Bihar Agricultural 
Income-tax Act, r948, to pay agricultural income-tax for the year 
in which the estate was in the management of the Court Receiver. 
Held, that the income though collected by the Receiver was 
the income of the appellant. By virtue of the provisions of ss. 2, 
cl. (m) and r3 of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act it was 
open to the taxing authorities to treat the Receiver as the 
assessee because he held the property from ··Y{hich income was 
derived, but on that account the income in tli:e.'nand of the owner 
was not exempt from liability to assessment of tax. Section 3 of 
the Act provides for charging agricultural income of every 
"person " as defined in s. 2, cl. (m) which includes a receiver and 
s. r3 merely provides a machinery for recovery of tax from 
"persons" including receivers and is not by itself a charging 
section. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JtrRISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
449of1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
decree dated August 7, 1956, of the Patna High Court 
in Misc. Judicial Case No. 604 of 1953. 
January II, 
"zg~I- \, 
'···406. 
~ . \ 
.,_· 
' . , 
' 
·, i 
/ 
-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
D. P. Singh, for the appellant. · 
---c-;·-- --·. 
Mahanth 
· \_ 
S. P. Varma, for the respondent. 
Ramswaroop Das 
1961. January 11. The Judgii::limt of the Court was 
• v. 
delivered by 
· · 
--
·--
. 
: -
'. 
State of Bihar 
. 
. 
SHAH, J.-The High Court of Judicature at Patna 
answered· in the . affirmMive the following question 
which was· submitted by the Board of Agricultural 
Income-tax, Bihar, under s. 28(3) of the Bihar Agri-
cultural Income-tax Act, XXXII of 1948-hereinafter 
referred to as the Act £ 
Shah]. 
.· 
' I 
"Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the 
case, the petitioner could be legally assessed for the 
income of the Estate in 1355 Fasli when the Estate 
was in the hand of the Receiver?" 
\Vi th special leave under- Art. 136 of .the Constitu-
tion, this appeal is preferred against the order of the 
High Court. The appellant is the l\fahant -of the 
Asthal Estate, Salauna, in the District of Bhagalpur 
in Bihar. In a suit concerning that estate, a Court 
Receiver was appointed by the First Class Subordinate 
Judge, .Mcinghyr, to manage the estate. The.Receiver 
functioned till sometime in December, 1949, and under 
the -order of the Subordinate Judge he handed over 
charge- of the estate to the appellant on Januai:ylb. 
-1950._ On January}5, 1950, the appellant submitted 
\.a return of .income of the estate to the Agricultural 
Income-tax Officer, l\fonghyr, for the Fasli year 1355 
·corresponding to September 16, 1948, to September 15, 
· 1~49. ·The Agricultural Income-tar Officer: assessed 
· on August 7, 1950, the agricultural income of the es_t-
ate at Rs. 90,507-2-6 and ordered the appellant to pay 
Rs. 20,290-13-0 as agricultural: income-tax. Appeals 
. . against the order of assessment preferred to the Com~ · · 
-:·missioner 'of Agricultural Income-tax and the Board 
of, Agricultural Income-tax; Bihar, were unsuccessful. 
The Board however refori:ed the question set . out 
hereinbefore to the High Court under s. 28(3) of tho 
'Act as arising out of its order. 
. .. · 
. 
- ; The, only question which falls to be determined i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.