LexSURAJ MALL MORTA AND CO. versus A. V. VISVANA THA SASTRI AND ANOTHER.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1954 Kishan !Al and Anotht1 v. iBJianwar Lal. Mr1/du:~ita J. •954 Atay 28. 448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19551 of the notification. The result is that we set aside the judgments of the Courts below and send the. case back to the Original Court of Jodhpur in order that it may be tried on all the other issues raised in the suit after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce such evidence as they want ,to adduce. The plaintiffs appel- lants will have their costs up to this stage. Further costs will abide the resu It. Order accordingly. SURAJ MALL MORTA AND CO. ti. A. V. VISVANA THA SASTRI AND ANOTHER. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., s. R. DAS, VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWA11 and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] Taxation on l11r.rnne (Investigation Cotnmission) Act (XXX of 1947) ss. 5(1), 5( 4)~Extent aad range different-S. 5( 4) and s. 34 of Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922)-Deal tvith same class of persons-Properties and characteristics the san1e-Procedure under the ttvo Acts diffi:rent-Section 5( 4)-lf1hether ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution. -+ Sub~section ( 4) of section 5 of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Com1nission) Act, 1947, does not deal 'vith the same class of persons as are said to have been grouped together in sub- section ( l) of ~section 5 of the Act as persons \Vho to a substantial extent eyaded payment of taxation on income. On a plain reading of the section it is clear that sub-section ( 4) of section 5 is not limited only to persons \\'ho made extraordinary profits and to all persons who 1nay have evaded payment of taxation on income irrespective of \Vhethcr the evaded profits are substantial or insubstantial and therefore the scope of sub-section ( 4) of section 5 .A. is different from the scope of sub-section ( 1) of section 5 both in extent and range .. Sub-section ( 4) of section 5 of the Act, obviously deals \Vi th the same class of persons who fall within the arnbit of section 34 of the Indian Incotne-tax Act an<l are de.1lt with in sub-section (1) of that section and \Vhose inco1ne can be caught by the proceeding under that section. It is not possible to hold that all such pc·rsons \Vho evaded payment of income-tax and do not truly disclose all particulars A or material facts necessary for their assessment an<l against whom a report is made undef sub-section ( 4) of section 5 of the impugned • - - • - - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 449 Act by themselves form a class distinct from those who evade pay- ment of income-tax and come. within the ambit of section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. Both section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and sub- section (4) of section 5 of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, deal with all persons who have similar characteristics and similar properties, the common characteristics being that they are persons who have not truly disclosed their ,,., income and have evaded payment of taxation on incqipe. The procedure prescribed by the Taxation on Income (Investi- gation Commission) Act, 1947, is substantially more prejudicial an.cl more drastic to the assessee than the procedure under the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922). ll eid, therefore that sub-section ( 4) of section 5 and the pro- cedure prescribed by the impugned Act in so far as it affects the persons proceeded against under that sub-section being a piece of discriminatory legislation offends against the provisions of article > 14 of the Constitution and is thus void and unenforceable. ORIGINAL JuRisDICTION : Petition No. 196 of 1954. Under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. P. R. Das and K. P. Khaitan, (B. Sen, A. K. Mukherjea and B. P. Maheswari, with them) for the petitioner. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India, (Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the res- pondents. 1954. May 28. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J.-The prin~ipal q~es tion canvassed in this case is whether certam sections of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, i.e., Act XXX of 1947, have become void from the date of the commencement of the Consti- tution of India by reason of article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. Ltd., is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Suraj Mall Mohta is also the managing· d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.