SIRPUR PAPER MILL LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, HYDERABAD

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 304 · Decided: 20-04-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

.304 
SJRPUR PAPER MILL LTD. 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, HYDERABAD 
April 20, 1970 
[J.C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
Wealth Tax Act, 1951, s. 25-Scope of-Commissioner disposing of 
·revision application according to direction of Board of Revenue-If proper 
exercise of his power in Revision. 
A 
B 
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax confirmed 
an 
C 
orde' passed by the Wealth Tax Officer as regards the method adopted by 
the latter in dealing with a claim for depreciation allowance made by the 
appellant company in the course of its assessment to wealth tax. The 
appellant company thereafter moved revision applications before the Com-
missioner under s. 25 of the Wealth Tax Act and the Commissioner re· 
iected these applications on the basis of certain directions issued by the 
lloard of Revenue .. 
On appeal to this Court by special Leave, 
HELD : The order passed by the Commissioner must be set aside and 
the revision applications must be heard and disposed of accorciing to law 
and uninfluenced by any instructions or directions given by the Board of 
~evenue. [307 G-HJ 
It was clear, on the facts, that from the inception of the proceedings, 
1he Commissioner put himself in communication with the Board of Central 
Revenue and sought instruction.-; from that authority as to how the: revision 
applications filed before him should be decided. 
He had exercised 
no 
independent judgment. 
The Commissioner appea.red to have misappre-
hended the true character of the jurisdiction with which he is by the Act 
entrusted and surrendered his )udgmen.t to the directions of the Board of 
~evenue. [306 F-G; 307 E-G] 
The power conferred by s. 25 is not administrative : it is quasi-judicial. 
Jn exercise of this power the Commissioner must brin.Q: to bear an un· 
biased mind. consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved 
Jlarty. and decide the dispute according to proce<.lure consistent with the 
principles of .1atural justice; he cannot permit his judgement to be in-
'fluenced by matters not disclosed to the assessee., nor by dictation of an-
·other authority. 
Any orders or instructions given by the Board and re-
quired to be followed under s. 13 by officers employed in the execution 
·of the Act may control the exercise of their power in matters adminis-
trative but not Quasi-iudicia1. 
Although the proviso to s. 13, which is 
som'!what obscure in its import, enacts that no orders shall be J?:iven by 
the Board so as to in.terfere with the discretion of the Appellate Assistant 
Commissioner in the exercise of his app~llate functions, it does not thereby 
·imply that the Board may give .,.1ch orders to the Wealth Tax Officer or 
to the Commissioner in exercise '1f his quasi-judicial function. 
Such 
an 
interpretation would be plainly contrary to the scheme of the Act and th• 
nature of the power conferrecI upon the aL horities invested with quasi .. 
iudicial power. [306 B-FJ 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B 
.SIRPUR MILL. V. C.W.T., HYDERABAD (Shah,/.) 
30$ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 2269 and: 
2270 of 1966. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
May 17, 1966 of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra 
Pradesh in J. No. Wt. 3(4) and 3(5) of 1959-60. 
A. K. Sen, B. P. Maheshwari and N. R. Kaitan, for the appel-
lant (in both the appeals) . 
S. Mitra, G. Das, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the 
respondent (in both the appeals). 
C 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
D 
E 
' 
G 
H 
Shah, J. In proceedings for determination of wealth tax 
for the assesment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 the appellant Com-
pany claimed depreciation allowance. on plant, building and 
machinery at the rates prescribed under the Income Tax Act and 
the Rules framed thereunder. The Wealth Tax Officer adopted the 
method prescribed by s. 7 sub-s. ( 2) of the Wealth Tax Act and. 
admitted the value of the assets as shown in the certified balance 
sheets on the respective valuation dates. 
In appeal, the Appel-
late Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax confirmed the · order 
passed by the Wealth Tax Officer. The Company then moved 
revision applications before the Commissioner of. Wealth Tax 
under s. 25 of the Wealth Tax Act. 
Against the '.>rder passed by 
the Commissioner of Wealth, Tax rejecting the applications, the· 
Company has filed these appeals under Art. 136 of the Constitu-
tion. 
Against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner 
appeals 

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