LexSOUTHERN ROADWAYS PRIVATE LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1H2 M/,. S-th Lid. •• Bt"' o/ ;1.,.., x..., J. 594 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. In view of our decision on these two points the third point, that is, the refuse.I of the Sales Tax Officer to amend t.he registration certificate will have no force. In the re8Ult thiB petition fails and is dismi88ed and the rule is dillche.rged. The petitioner will pay the costs of the respondent. P e.tition diamisaed. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS PRIVATE LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHE1t (B. P. S1x1u. C.J., J. L. KAPua, M. HrnAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH and J. R. MunnoLKAR, JJ.) lnwme Ta:r-Detelopmtftt Rtbak-DiaallouJanu on offiu appliances and tmnaport V<liic/u I/ di«:rimi11atory-J....,,,...taz Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) aR amtndtd by tM. Ta:raliott U.wa (Amendment) Act (28 o/ 1960, a. 10(2) (ri-b) -4 prolli.to. The as~ company owned a fleet of bmes and carried on the business of transport. The income-tax offiett dis- allowed development rebate on the transport vehicles owned by the company as provided by the second proviso to s. 10(2) (vi-b) of the Income-tax Act. The company challenged the section on the ground that the said provbo offends Art. 14 In that it discriminates between machinery which is ofrICe appli- anc.,. or road transport vehicl.,. and other kinds of machinery. lleld, that there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the Legislature from choo.ing the objects of taxation from amonll"t vaiious classes of machinery for purpose of giving development rebate. OIUGINAL JuruenrCTION: Petition No. 143 of 1961. Petition under Art. 32 or the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental rights. S. Sunminathan and R. GopaJakri.,hnan, for the petitioner. K. N. Rajagopaki Sastri and P. D. Menon, for the respondentAI. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 595 1962 1962. January 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J.-This is a petition by the asaessee under Art. 3:! of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of the second proviso to s. 10(2) (vi-b) of Income tax Act introduced by The Taxa- tion Laws (Amendment) Act (28 of 1960). The relevant section with the proviso is as follows :- Sou"'4m RoadWt11• p,;-Ltd. S. 10(1) "The tax shall be payable by an s,ssessee under the head "Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation" in respect of the profits or gains of any business, pro- fession or vocation carried on by him. (2) Such profit• or uains shall be com· puted after making the followin~ allowances, namely: ............................................... ' ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... . (vi-b) in respect, of machinery or plant being nPw, which has been installed after the 3 lst day of March, 1954, and which is wholly used for the purposeR of the business carried on by the assessee, a sum by way of develop- ment rebate in respect of the year of installa- tion equivalent to twer.ty-five per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant to the assessee : Provided that no allowance under this clause shall be m'lde unless the particulars prescribed for the purpose of clause (vi) have been furnished by the assessee in respect of such machinery or plant; Provided further that no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of any machinery or plant which consist of office appliances or road transport vPhiclPs." The petitioner is a limited company with its registered office at ;\fadm·qi in the Rtate of llfadras v. Union of Ind i• K¥UrJ. 1962 ,%1dlu,. Bea·iwllJ' .. PriNJI L1d. v. U11Um o/ lntlia K•pur .J. J!u;;t 5!16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1002) SUPP. which owna a. fleet of buses a.nd lorries and carriell on the business of transport In res1wot of !IBRl'R~· ment year I !!60-61 it cla.imoo a. development rPbate on all its plants and machiner.v including buPines.q. The Income tax Officer diHallowed tho olnim of rebate on transport vehicles under the proviso above quoted and computed the tax payable with- out such rebatfl. ft was contonderl on behalf of the petitioner that the proviso oft'cnrls Art. 14 in that it discriminates betweon machinery which is office appliance or road transport vehicl<'s and other kind of machinery. It is difficult to accept such a contention because there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the legislBture from r:hoosing thp, object of taxation from 11mong~t various cla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.