SASHI PRASAD BAROOAH versus THE AGRICULTURE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SHILLONG, ASSAM & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 645 · Decided: 19-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

J 
645 
SASHI PRASAD BAROOAH 
v. 
THE AGRICULTURE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SHILLONG, 
ASSAM & ORS. 
January 19, 1977 
(H. R. KHANNA AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Assam A;;ric11/t11ral Income Tax Rules, 193,9 r. 23-Scope oj- Rule if ultra 
vi res. 
Rule 23 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939 provides that 
where an order apportioning the liability to the tax on the basis of partition 
has not been passed in respect of a Hindu undivided family hithert0: assessed 
as undivided or joint, such family shall be deemed, to continue to be a Hindu 
undivided or joint family. 
The assessee was the Karta of a Hindu undivided family,_which was assessed 
to agricultural income-tax in respect of income derived from the manufacture 
and sale of tea. 
The assessee contended before the Agricultural Income-tax 
Officer that, since there was disruption of the Hindu undivided family, no agri-
cultural income-tax was payable exen though agricultural income had arisen 
from tea estates. This plea was rejected. 
His petition under Art. 226 of the 
Constitution impugning the validity of r. 23 had been dismissed by the 
High 
Court. 
Jn appeal to this Court it was contended that (i) after the dissolution of 
the family no assessment order could be made under r. 23 in respect of such 
disrupted Hindu Undivided family (ii) the State Government had no power to 
make a rule for the assessment of a Hindu undivided family after a partition 
took place in the family. 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD: (1) The language of r. 23 clearly warrants the conclusion that in 
the absence of an order apportioning the li~bility to tax on the basis of parfi-
tion in respect of a Hindu undivided family hitherto assessed as undivided or 
joint, such family shall be deemed, for the purpose of the Act to continue to 
be a Hindu Undivided family. 
No order· apportioning the liability to tax on 
the basis of the alleged partition having been passed, the family shall continue 
to be treated as a Hindu undivided family. 
[651 C-F] 
2(a) The liability for tax having been created by the charging section, the 
rule deals with the question as to who should be the person that should be 
assessed to tax. 
This is a matter of detail to carry out the purposes of the Act 
and the State Government was well within its competence to inake the rule in 
exercise of its rule-making power. 
[652 C-D] 
(b) The fact thaJ.. .unlike the Income-tax Act, there is no statutory provision 
in the Act and the matter is dealt with by the rules, would not make any mate· 
rial difference. The rules would lie as much binding as would 
be 
statutory 
provision in 1jiis respect. 
r652 E-F] 
(c) It is well settled that it is not unconstitutional for the 
legislature 
to 
leave it to the executive to determine the details relating to the working of taxa-
tion Jaws, such as s~lection of persons on whom the tax is to be levied, the 
rate at which it is to be charged in respect of different classes of goods and 'the 
like. 
r652 G-H] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
Pt. Ba11arsi Das v. Stale of Madhya Pradesh [1959] S.C.R. 427, followed. 
H 
Powell v. Appollo Candle Company Limited [1885] 10 A.C. 282 and Syed 
Mohamed & Co. v. The Stale of Madras 3 S.T.C. 367, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
646 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1977] 2 S.C.R. 
C1v1L APPELLATE JuR1smcnoN : Civil Appeal'Nos. 245-251/72. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21-9-1970 of tfue Assam and 
Nagaland High Court in Civil Rules Nos. 105 106 and 123 to 127/ 
66. 
, 
A. K. Sen, D. N. Mukherjee and N. R. Choudhary for the Appel-
lant. 
Purshottam Chatterjee and S. N. Choudhary for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA, J. 
The short question which arises for consideration in 
these seven appeals filed on certificate against the judgment of Assam 
and Nagaland High Court is the scope and validity of the following 
part <;>f rule 23 9f the Assam Agricultural Income~tax Rules, 1939 
(heremafter referred to as the rules) framed under section 50 of the 
Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act (Assam Act 9 of 1939) (herein-
after referred to as the Act) : 
"Where an order apportioning the liability to 
the tax 
. on the basis of partition has not been passed in respect of 
a Hindu family hitherto assessed as undivided or joint, such 
family shaLi be deemed for the purposes of the Act, to con-
tinue to be a Hindu undivided or joint family." 
The High Court held that the facts of this case were covered by 
the above quoted rule. 
The H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.