LexT. M. KANNIYAN versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PONDICHERRY AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
T. M. KANNIYAN
v
INCOME·TAX OFFICER, PONDICHERRY AND ANR.
(With Connected Petitions)
October 30, 1967
[K. N. WANCHOO, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI,
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.)
Constitution of India, Articles 240(1) and Proviso,, 246--Power of
President to 111ake Regulation for Unlon territories, scope ·of-"Pepce,
progress a1td good governn1erit:', 111eaning of-Taxation Laws (Extension
to Union Territories) Regulation (3 of 1963)-General Clauses Act,
1897, s. 3(58)-D.efinition of "State" Including Union territories if re-
p1111nant to the subject and context of Ari, 246.
Parliament enacted the Pondicherry Administration Act. 1962, which
provided that all laws in ·force immediately before
August 19, 1962,
1when Pondicherry became a Union territory, were to continue to
b-~
in force until amended or repealed by a competent 1egis1ature or other
competent authority.
The President, in exercise of the powers conferred
on him by Art.
240 of the Constitution to ·make regulations for the
"pea~e. progress and good government" of the Union territories promul-
gated the Tax Laws (Extension to Union Territories) Regulafon. 1963.
By this Regulation the laws in force in relation to income tax in the
Union territory of Pondicherry were repealed J.nd
tJ:ie Indian Income-
tax Act, 1961 was made applicable.
The petitioners challenged
the,
vires of t!..te Regulation.
HELD : The Regulation is valid .
. The power of the President to make regulations under Art. 240 is
not limited to the subject of law and order. Authority to make regula-
tion~ for "peace, progress and good government" is a common form of
grant of legislative power and the express1on ".peace, progress and good·
government" is of very wide import giving wide discretion to the autho-
rity empowered to pass laws for such purposes. The President can make--
regulations with respect· to a Union territory occupying the same field
on which Parliament can· also make laws.
Such a reguiation may repeal
or amend .any .Act made by Parliarrient or any existing law which "is for
the time being applicable to the Union terr;tory and when promulgated
has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament wh'.ch applies to·
to that territory. [!07E-!08D]
Riel v. Queen, [1865) 10 AC. 675, Chenard and Co. v. Joachim
Ari"<Ol, [1949] A.C. 127, AttornR,v-General for Saskatchewan v. Canadian
Pacific· Ry. Co., [1953] AC. 594, King Emperor v. Benoari fq/ Sarma.
[1914) L.R. 72 I.A. 57. loJ?endra NaraYan Deb v.
Debendra Narayan
Roy, [1942) L.R. 69' I.A. 76 and Girindra Nath Banerjee v.
Birendra
Nuth Pal. [1927] l.L.R. 54 Cal. 727, referred to.
H
Parliament has, by virtue of Art. 246(4). power to make laws with
respect to any matter including matters enumerated in the State List,
for any part of the territory of India not included in a State.
With re-
gard to Union territor'.es there is no
dis~rbution of l"egfs1ative power
I 0 ·I
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 2 S.C.R
and P.:1rli:nnent ha\ plenary power to n1ake la\\'s for those territories on
:inv 'uhjccl. Though the definition of "State" in s. 3(58) of the Gcncr:1l
Clau~cs Act, 1897. taking v.ilhin it Union territories. applies to lhe inlcr-
prcration of the Constitution. this inclusive definition is repugnant to
t\1c subject and context of Art.
246. ·rhcrc. the
expression
"Sta1c"
n1cans the State socci:.~d in the First Schedule.
Parliament can bv l;:l\V
extend the JncomC-tax Act, 1961, to a Union territory y,·ith such inodi-
tications as it
think~ fit.
l"hc President can, therefore, by regulation do
1hc same.
{ 108E; J09A-D]
R. K. St•n v. Union, [1966) I S.C.R. 430, reforr"J ro.
The power of the President to make regul<ilions for any of the \;nion
territories specified in Art. 240(1) so long as no legislature is created
for the territory is not f:tlcreJ by the proviso to A". 240( I) or limited
to matters enumerated in the State List ano the Concurrent list [llOG)
It is not necessary to n1ake any distribution of
income·taX
"'ith
rcc;pect to Union territories. as those territories or~ centrally administered
through the President. II I IA-BJ
•
ORIGISAL ]URISD!CTJOS: Writ Petitions ]Sos. 49, 60, 61 and
80 of 1967.
A
B
c
Writ Petitions under Ari. 32 of the Conslitution of India for
D
the enforcement of fundamental right~.
·
K. Narayanaswamy and Lily Thomas, for the oelitioner r in
W.P. No. 49 of 1967).
Sadhu Singh, for the petitioneExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.