PANNALAL BINJRAJ versus UNION OF INDIA.

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 21-12-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
233 
PANNALAL BINJRAJ 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA. 
(BHAGWATI, 
JAGANNADHADAS, 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAs JJ.) 
Income-tax-Transfer of cases-Discretion vested in the Com-
missioner or the Board, if discriminatory and violative of 
funda-
mental rights-Omnibus wholesale order of transfer, if constitution-
ally valid-Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), as amended by 
Amending Act XXVI of 1956, JS. 5(7 A), 64(1), (2)-Constitution of 
India Arts. 14, 19(J)(g). 
These petitions on behalf of the assessees raised the common 
question as to the 
constitutionality 
of s. 
5(7-A) of ·the 
Indian 
Income-tax Act, which was 
raised but not decided by this Court 
in Bidi Supply Co. 
v. The Union of India, (1956) S. C. R. 267. 
Reliance 
was 
placed 
on the 
obsenrations 
of Bose, J., in 
his 
minority judgment in that case and it was contended that the 
section read with the explanation, subsequently added to it as a 
result of that decision, conferred arbitrary and uncontrolled powers 
cf transfer on 
the 
Income-tax 
Commissioner 
and 
the Central 
Board of Revenue, was discriminatory and violative of the provi-
sions of Art. 14 and imposed an unreasonable 
restriction on 
the 
right to carry on trade or business in contravention of Art. 19(1 )(g) 
of 
the 
Constitution. 
It 
was 
further 
contended 
that 
the 
omnibus wholesale orders of transfer made without any reference 
to any particular case or without any limitation as 
to time were 
inconvenient and discriminatory and ran counter to the majority 
judgment in that case. The contention of the Central Board of 
Revenue, supported by affidavits filed on its 
behalf, was that the 
section was intended to 
minimise 
administrative 
inconvenience. 
there was no 
discrimination 
aftc-.r 
transfer 
because 
the 
same 
relevant provisions of the Act as applied to others similarly situat-
ed, were applied after the transfer and any resulting inconveni-
ence to the asscsscc was sought to be minimised 
by transferring 
his case either to the nearest area or, where that was not feasible, 
by examining his accounts or evidence, if required by him, at a 
place suited to his convenience 
and that the wholesale omnibus 
orders of transfer were covered by the explanation : 
Held, that s. 5(7A) of the Indian 
Income-tax Act was 
a 
measure of administrative convenience, 
was con~titutionally valid 
2nd did not infringe any of the fundamental rights conferred by 
Arts. 14 and (19)(g) of the Constitution and the orders of transfer 
in question were saved by the explanation to 
that section 
and 
wen: constitutionally valid. 
D1e1mher, 21. 
1956 
P•M-1.J Binjraj 
v. 
Ullio11 If India 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
The right conferred on the assessec by s. 64( I) and ~2) of the 
Act was hot an absolute right and must be subject to the- primary-
objcct 
of the Act itself, namely, the assessment and collection 
of 
incomc~tax, and 
\Vhc:rc 
the .exigencies 
of 
tax 
colli:ction 
so 
required, the Co111missioncr of lncomc~tax or the Central 
Board, 
o{ Revenue had the power under s. 5(7A) of the A<:t 
t.<> transfer 
his case to some other officer outside 
the area where he resided or 
carried on business and 
any difference 
in his 
pos1t1on 
created 
thereby as compared to that of others similarly situa<ed would be 
no more than a minor deviation from the 
general 
standard 
and 
would not amount to a denial of equ•lity before the law. 
This discretionary 
power vested in the 
Authecitics by the 
section to override_ the statutory right of the assascc must be. 
distinguished from 
the 
discretion 
that 
has 
to be exercised 
in 
respect of a fundamental 
right guaranteed 
by 
the Constitution 
and the two tests to judge whether it 
was 
discriminatory would 
be, ( 1 ) whether it admitted of the possibility of any real and 
substantial 
discrimination and 
(2) whether it impinged on a 
fundamental 
right 
guaranteed 
by 
the 
Constitution, 
and, 
IO 
judged, the discretion vested in the Authorities by s. 5(7 A) of 
the Act was not at all discriminatory nor did the 
section impose 
any unreasonable restriction 
on the 
fundamental 
right 
to carry 
on trade or business. 
Bidi Supply Co. v. The Union of India, (1956) S.C.R. 267; 
M. K. Gopa/an v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 
(1955) I S.C.R. 
168; The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarlr.u, (1952) S.C.R. 
284 ; Daya/das Kushiram v. Commission" of lnc.,,,,e-tu, ( Centrlll)~ 
l.L.R. 1940 Born. 650; 

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