D. · R. MAD HA V AKRISHNAIAH v. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

is ultra vires and void as the Union Parliament had no power to make a law authorising auy officer or authority or Tribunal or Court appointed or constituted under In to levy, assess and collect income come-tax Act, 1922, law prior tax and super-tax payable under the Mysore · to India. the Constitution of the commencement of is based on two grounds : namely, The contention the Union firstly, on general constitutional principles to make a law having retros 'Parliament had no power . pective operation with reference the pre-Constitu- tion period ; and s~condly, the Union Parliament the Constitution is prohibited by from making a law grafting by necessary implication on the Mysore assessment and collection provided under Indian for purposes of assessment ·Income-tax Act, 1922, · thereunder. the machinery article· 277 income-tax So far as the first ground governed by judgment [Union of Rajasthan '](abra (') l It remains only ground based article is concerned, the case is delivered India v. Madan Gopal to deal with the second 277. That article reads • "Ally "thus : taxes, duties, cesses or fees which, immediately , . the commencement of this Constitution, were before levied by the Government of any State lawfully . ,J,ieing local authority arc :,,or.by, al!y municipality or other ·' body . for, the purposes · of the.. ~tate, municipality, , dist~i~t-~~0,pther I01=~l ,.,area, .•• may, . notwithstanding,. ~hat ( 1 ) Infra. P 54'. .. ' 1953 D.R. Madhava luisJmaioJ v. Tiu Income-tax O.ffiar, Bangalore. Palatdali Sasfri C.J. 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19541 those taxes, duties, cesses, or fees are mentioned in the to be levied and to be applied to Union List, continue the same purposes until provision made by Parliament by law." the contrary is subject legislative the contrary It was urged income-tax and lawfully it followed by necessary implication, law of income-tax must be applied for that, inasmuch as the article authorises, among others, super-tax which the Government of levied by was being Mysore prior to the commencement of the Constitution to be levied and to be applied to the same purposes even after the commencement of the Constitution until is made by Parliament by provision law was made by Parliament till law, and no such the Indian Finance Act, 1950, April 1, 1950, when was enacted, Mysore levy, assessment and collection of such taxes and, as power conferred on Parliament by article 245 to the provisions of the Constitu including article 277, Parliament had no power to legislate, grafting officers and authorities appointed under the Indian Income-tax Act, on the Mysore State, levy, assessment and collection of in this argu ment. While article 277 undoubtedly authorises levied by the Govern continued ment of the State before the commencement of the Constitution the Constitution purposes the article 10. warrant should collected by continue the Constitution. same State authorities as before rightly pointed out, As it would the High Court inconvenient and unnecessary to obviously have been Income-tax have oflircers appointed under the Mysore respect of the Act continuing side with ofliccn earlier assessment years appointed under Income-tax Act also in the State for assessments subsequent to functioning April 1, 1950. Both as a measure of economy and lIWl3gement, ~ witli a view levied, assessed and there is nothing the State law. We see no force function only side by to smooth and efficient into force, as before, their app!ication levy of taxes implication lawfully to be Indian S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 541 law to income-tax Indian Finance Act, 1950. We that the change was obviously necessary and desirable over frorri the Mysore Indian Income-tax Act should be in the way provided by sec tion 13 of the in article 277 of the Constitution to preclude nothing levy and Parliament making a law providing for collection of super-tax Mysore Act through authorities appointed under Indian Income-tax Act. Accordingly, we hold Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Cirde, Banga the appellant to income lore, had jurisdiction to assess tax and super-tax period prior to the commencement of the Constitution. income-tax and in respect of income of 1953 D:R. Madhtwa krishnaiak v. The Income-tax Offim, Bangalore. '·; PataT/jali Sastri C.J. I The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. Appeals dismissed. Agent for the appellant : M. S. K. Sastri. Agent for the respondent : G. H. Rajadhyaksha. THE UNION OF INDIA tJ. MADAN GOPAL KABRA. 1953 Dec. 16. (PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, S. R. DAs, GHULAM HASAN and JAGANNAD 0 HADAS JJ.J Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) as amended by Finance Act (XXV of 1950), s. 3-Taxable territories-Meaning of-Section 2 (14-A) proviso ( b) (i) and (iii)-Income accruing to assessee in State of Rajasthan in 1949-50-Liability to income-tax-Sections 3 and 4 of Indian Income-tax Act and s. 2 of Finance Act and proviso to the amended s. 2 (14-A)-Constitution of Indian, Arts. 245 and 246 read with entry 82 of List I of Seventh Schedule-Parliament com petent to make laws with respect to taxes for the tvho/e of lndia Constitution competent to make laws having retrospective operation for pre-Constitution period. residing and carrying on business in the Respondent was· District of Jodhpur in Rajasthan, a Part B State. His income arising therein during the accounting year 1949-50 was sought to the year 1950-51 under the Indian be assessed to income-tax Indian Finance Act. He !nCQme-tax Act as amended by to the High Court praying presented a petition under art. 226