RANJIT SINGH versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 966 · Decided: 14-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
I96r 
RANJIT SINGH 
April r4. 
V. 
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 
U. P. AND OTHERS. 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
J. C. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) 
Income Tax-Evasion of Taxation-Case referred lo Investiga-
tion Commission-Settlement of Case-Notice of demand-Com-
mencement of Constitution-Reco11ery of tax thereafter-Legality-
Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission.) Act, 1947 (30 of 
1947), ss. 8, 8-A-Constitution of lndia, Art. r4. 
In 1948 the Central Government referred a number of cases 
in which the petitioner was concerned, to the Income-tax Inves-
tigation Commission set up under the relevant provisions of the 
Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947· After 
the Commissi~n had submitted the report under s. 8-A(l} of the 
Act, in which the total tax payable on the undisclosed income 
upto March 31, 1947, was estimated, the petitioner applied for 
a settlement of his case by offering to pay the amount of tax in 
instalments and by agreeing to pay the whole amount imme-
diately in case of default in payment of any of the instalments 
in time. The Central Government accepted the terms suggested 
by the petitioner and passed an order on November 21, 1949, 
under s. 8-A(2) ·of the Act directing the service of a demand 
notice on the petitioner and recovery of the tax in accordance 
with the terms and conditions of the settlement. On December 
2, 1949, a notice of demand was issued to the petitioner who, in 
pursuance thereof, made certain payments. But as the petition-
er was unable to make full payment within the stipulated 
periods, the whole amount outstanding became immediately 
payable and certain properties belonging to him and his family 
were attached by the Collector of the district concerned for the 
recovery of the amount. On June 8, 1959, the petitioner filed a 
writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India chal-
lenging the legality of the demand notice dated December 2, 
1949, and the subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance of 
that notice on the ground that after the coming into force of 
the Constitution of India on January 26, r950, they were viola-
tive of the fundamental right of equal protection of the laws 
guaranteed under Art. 14, inasmuch as what he had agreed to 
pay the Government as a result of the settlement was really a 
debt and be had been dealt with differently from other debtors 
who.owed money to the State under a contractnal liability. 
Held, 
(r) that the proceedings against the petitioner cul-
minating in the service of the notice of demand against him 
were all completed before the coming into force of th~ Constitu-
tion and the petitioner cannot challenge those proceedrngs under 
t-
I 
•• I 
I 
ii 
I 
• ' 
1 
• 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
967 
Art. r4 of the Constitution, because it is well settled that the 
Constitution is prospective and not retrospective; 
(2) that the true scope and effect of sub-s. (2) of s. 8-A is 
to enforce the terms of any settlement arrived at in pursuance 
of sub-s. (r), which was really income-tax which had escaped 
assessment; 
(3) that the petitioner belonged not to the larger class of 
debtors of Government but to a special class which had evaded 
payment of income-tax for which the procedure laid down in 
s. 8-A(2) was one and the same, and that the classification being 
reasonable having a just relation to the object of the provision, 
the recovery procedure cannot be challenged as discriminatory 
under A rt. 14. 
SurajMallMohtaand Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and 
Another, [1955] l S.C.R. 448, M. CT. Muthiah & two Others v. 
The 
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras & 
Another, [r955] 
2 S.C.R. 1247 and Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income-
tax, Delhi & Rajasthan and Another, [1959] Supp. l S.C.R. 528, 
distinguished. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Writ Petition No. 85 of 
1959. 
Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of 
India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. S. Pathak, S .. N. Andley, 
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the petitioner. 
K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and D. Gupta, for respon-
dents Nos. I and 2. 
1961.' April 14. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Ranjit Singh 
v. 
Commissioner of 
Income·tax, 
U. P. 
S. K. DAS, J.-One Ranjit Singh is the petitioner s. K. Das ;. 
before us. The respondents are the Commissioner of 
Income-tax, Lucknow, the Income-tax Officer, Luck-
now,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.