LexPURSHOTTAM GOVINDJI HALAI versus SHREE B.M ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY & OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
887
be convicted of the offence under section 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code when his alleged co-conspirators
accused 2, 3 and 4 were acquitted of that offence.
In our opinion, therefore, the conviction of the
acoised No. 1 of the charge under section 120-B of
the Indian Penal Code was clearly illegal. The appeal
of the accused No. 1 will, therefore, be allowed to the
extent that his conviction under section 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code ::md the sentence of rigorous im-
pri,;onmeut of l 8 months awanletl to him as the result
thereof would be quashed. 'Ve are not concerned here
with th~ conviction of the accused No. 1 of the offences
under section 471
read with section 465 and also his
conv;ction for each of the three offences under section
420 of the Indian
Penal Code
and the concurrent
sen<ences of
rigorous imprisonment for one year in
respect of each of them passed by the lower Courts
upon him in regard to the same.
These convictions
and sentences will of course stand.
PURSHOTTAM GOVINDJI HALAI
v.
Sf-LS.EE R M. DESAI. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR
OF BOMBAY & OTHERS.
f S. R.
DAs,
AcTING C.J.. Vrvr,1"' BosE,
DAS.
J,1n1t
brA:vr
and
CHANDRM'EKHARA
JAGANNADHA-
ArYAR JJ.]
Constitution of India, Arts. 13(1 ), 14, 21-l ndian Income T 11x
Act 1922 ,(Act XI of 192:!), s. 46(2)-Whether offends Arts. 13(1), 14
& 21 of the Constitutio11-Bombay Land Revenue Act 1876 (Boml.1y
Act !! of 1876)-IV!ietlier offends Art. 14 of the Co11stitutio11.
The assessee carrying on business in the City of Bombav was
as~csscd to income-tax for the years 1943-44 to 1947-48 and 1951-52
by the Income-tax Officer C-1 \Vard Bombay.
As the assessee did
not pay the income-tax due the Income-tax Officer issued in April 1951
to the Additional Collector of Bombay a recovery certificate under
s. 46(2) nf the Indian Income tax Act, 1922.
In February 1954 the
Additional Collector issued a notice of demand an.cl as no payment
was made he attached the good will and tenancy rights of the asses-
see's premises by a warrant of attachment dated 24th March 1954.
1955
Topandas
V•
The Stal' of
Bombay
Bha;wali ].
1955
October i-f.
1!155
Pu.rshotlam
Govintlji Halai
v.
Shrtt B.M, Dtjai,
A1ditior.al Col-
h'Clor of Bomba;·
nnd othtrs
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19551
A sale was held in February 1955.
The sale proceeds not being
sufficient to satisfy the assessed t.ax the Additional Collector is.c;ued
a notice under s. 13 of the Bombay City Land Rc\·enne Act, ] 876
requiring the assessee to appear hcforc him and show cause \Vhy he·
should not be apprehended and confined to civil prison in s:lti:,f;1c-
tion of the said certified dernand. In default of as:;csSee's app':":arance
and showing cause a warrant for his arrest was issued u11der s. 13
of the Bombay Act, 11 of 1876 and he was actually arrested on 1st
July 1955.
An application t{) the Bombay High Court tinder Art.
226 of the Constitution for a \Vrit in the nature of a writ of habca,•
corpus having proved unsuccessful, an application
un<lr.r .i\rt. 32
· \Vas filed in the Supren1e Court for the san1e relief.
1\vn n1ain
points urged on behalf of the assessce were ·
(a) that ~. 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act under which the
Income-tax Officer' issued the recoYery certificate to the Additional
Collector of Bombay \Vas void, under Art. 13( l) of the Con';titutiort
in that it offended Art. 21 and Art. 14 of the Constitution;
(b) that s. 13 of the Bombay Land Revenue Act, 1876 (llom·
hay Act II of 1876) under v:hich the warrant of arrest \Va~ is:iued
by the i\<lditional Collector was void under Art. 13( 1) of the
(~on·
stitution as the same was repugnant to Art. 14 of the Con<:1it11tion.
1-leld (as regards a) (i) that there \Vas no violation ol fur;da·
n1ental rig-hts under Art. 21 of the Constitution inas1nuch
;.i-; s. 13
of the B~n1bay Act II of 1876 under which warrant of :nrc-.<;t was
issued for the recovery of the de1nand certified under s. 46(2) of the
Indian Income-tax A.ct constituted a procedure estahlished by l.:nv.
Both s. 13 of Bombay Act II of 1876 and s. 46 of the ln:!ian fn ..
come-tax Act under which action had been taken against
th~ asses-
see were not void and therefore no question of violation of fuildJ-
1ncntal rights under Art. 21 could arise at all;
(ii) the contention that s. 46(2) of the Indian Inc01nc-~.1:-: Act
provides for tv.•o <liffe~ent and alternative 1nethods of reExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.