LexSHREE MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD., MADURAI versus SRI A. V. VISVANATHA SASTRI AND ANOTHER.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- j » • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 787 mentioned and, as before, a second order setting out the purpose, housing a person without accommodation, was made in August, 1951. For the reasons already given, we hold that there was a public purpose and that the orders here were valid. The only other question, namely whether a mandamus can issue now, becomes unnecessary. Civil Appeals Nos. 145 and 147 of 1952 are allowed and the petitions in these two cases will be dismissed but here also there will be no order about costs throughout. Civil Appeal No. 146 of 1952 will be dismissed because of the undertaking given by the learned Attorney- General, and the order of the High Court will stand. In view of this we need not decide. whether a mandamus can or should have been issued. As we have said, this appeal will be dismissed but there will be no order about costs throughout. Appeal dismissed. SHREE MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD., MADURAI v. SRI A. V. VISVANATHA SASTRI AND ANOTHER. (With Connected Petitions.) [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., s. R. DAS, GHULAM HASAN, BHAGWATI and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] Constitution of India, Art. 14-Taxation on Income (Investiga- tion Commission) Act, 1947 (XXX of 1947), s. 5(1)-Whether ultra vires the Constitution-S. 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 and Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), s. 34 as amended by Indian Income- tax (Amendment) Act, 1954-Whether cover the same field-Dis- criminatory procedure before the date of Constitution and after the date of Constitution-Validity thereof. Parliament by amending s. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by passing the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act (XXXIII of 1954) has now provided that cases of those very persons who originally fell within the ambit of s. 5(1) of Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 (XXX of 1947) and who, it 1954 The State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and Anothn-. Bose]. 1954 October 21. 1954 Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Sri A. V. Vi.sva- natlw Sastri and Another. 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] " was alleged, formed a distinct class, can be dealt with under the amended s. 34 and under the procedure provided in the Indian Income-tax Act. Both categories of persons, namely, those who calne \Vithin the scope of s. 5(1) as well as those who came within the ambit of s. 34, now form one class. Held, that after the coming into force of the Indian Incomc- tax (Amendment) Act, 1954 (XXXIII of 1954) which operates on the same field as s. 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 the provisions of s. 5(1) of Taxation on Income (Investigation Com1nission) Act, 1947 (XXX of 1947), assuming they were based on a rational classifica- tion, have becorne void and unenforceable as being discrimina- tory in character. Article I 4 of the Constitution not only guarantees equal protection as regards substantive laws but procedural laws as well. When an Act is valid in its entirety before the date of the Constitution the part of the proceedings regulated by the special procedure and taken during the pre-Constitution period cannot be questioned however discriminatory it may have been but the dis- crin1inatory procedure after the coining into force of the Constitu- tion cannot be continued. Suraj Mal Mohta v. Sri A. V. Visvanatha Sastri (A.LR. 1954 S.C. 545), Keshava Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay ([1951] S.C.R. 228), Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja and Another v. The State of Bombay· ([1952] S.C.R. 710), Syed Qasin Razvi v. State of Hyderabad ([1953] S.C.R. 589) and Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad ([1953] S.C.R. 661) referred to. ORIGINAL JuRISDICTION : Petitions Nos. 330 to 333 of 1954. Under article 132 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. P. R. Das (B. Sen, Balaprasad Singh and Ganpat Rai, with him) for the petitioner. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (G. N. Joshi, Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with them) for the respondents. 1954. October 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J.-Writ Petitions Nos. 330 to 333 of 1954, though presented by different persons, raise identical questions for consideration and decision and can be conveniently disposed of by one judgment. \ - - • - - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 789 In April, 1947, Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 (Act
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.