Kishan !Al and Anotht1 v. Mr1/du:~ita J

before first day of September, 1948, refer to the Commission for investigation and report any case or points in a case in which the Central Government has prim a f acie reasons for believing that a person has to a substantial extent evaded payment of taxation on mcome, together with such material as may be avail able m support of such belief, and may at any time before Commission for the withdrawal of any case or points in a case thus referred ........... . the 1st day of September, 1948, apply to (2) .. -.............................. . (3) No reference made by the Central Government the first day 111 question, nor the sufficiency of the material on which such a in any manner under sub-section (1), at any time before of September, 1948, shall be called reference has been made be investigated by any Court. ( 4) If in or points m a case the Commission has reason to believe- the course of investigation into any case referred to it under sub-section ( 1), ( a) that whose case is being of taxation on income, or person the person investigated has evaded payment (b) that some points other referred to it by the Central Government in respect of any case 1954 Suraj Mall Mohla and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri awl A11uther. MehrC/ltllld Mahajan C. J. 452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] investigation, it may make a report to the also require its reasons for such belief Central Government stating the Central Government and, on receipt of such report; notwithstanding shall, section (1), forthwith refer to the Commission for investi gation the case of such other person or such additional points as may be indicated in that report." . contained anything The powers possessed by the Commission while conducting an investigation are provided for in section 6 which is in these terms : "6(1)-The Commission shall reqmre any person or banking or other company to furnish on or before a specified date prepare and written statements of accounts and affairs verified such manner as may be prescribed by the Commission required by the Commission, also duly and, verified by a qualified auditor, giving information on the opinion of such points or matters as 111 Commission may, directly or indirectly, be useful for, or relevant to, any case referred to it, and any person or banking or other company required shall be bound, notwithstanding any law to the contrary, to' comply with such requirement. (2) The Commission administer oaths, and shall have all the powers of a the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the purposes . of taking evidence .on oath, enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of persons whose cases the production of are being documents and the examina tion of witnesses. shall also have power issuing comm1ss10ns for investigated, compelling ,court under (3) If in the course of any investigation it appears to examine any to be necessary the Commission accounts or documents or to interrogate any person or the Commis obtain any statements from ~ny person, authority not authorize any mcome-tax s10n may below the rank of Income-tax Officer in that behalf .... ( 4) The authorized official the same powers as; direction of the Commission have the Commission under sub-sections (1) and (2), andl subject the . ' - - • • ,i. 1954 Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v • A. V'. Visvanath11< Sastri and Anothtr. MehrCh4nd Mahajan G. ]. • • - , • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 453 any person having charge or custody of accounts or documents shall notwith law to the contrary be bound standing anything to produce them ...... ,, ...... . to be examined required in any judgment and may from the person by way of penalty (5) If any person whose case or the points whose case is or are being investigated by the Commis sion refuses or fails to attend in person in compliance in that behalf duly served upon him or with a notice to give any evidence or to answer questions or to produce documents or to prepare and furnish state ments when called upon the Commission to do so, may, if satisfied that refusal or failure was wilful, investigation of the case and proceed to draw up its report on the case or on the points to the best in its discretion also direct that such sum as it may specify in the direction shall be recovered the refusal or failure, without prejudice to any penalty under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ................. . (6) .......................................... . (7) Where in the opinion of the Commission any to be in person or banking or other company possession of any information or document which may, directly or indirectly, be useful for, or relevant to, any case to he reported by the Central Govern ment under the provisions of sub-section ( 4) of section 5, the Commission and subject to the direction of Commission any authorized official, may make en it or he may deem fit and quiries obtain from such person or banking or other company statements on oath or otherwise on such points or matters as may be specified ; and for the purpose of the Commission and the authorized any such enquiry, official shall have all the powers conferred on them by sub-sections (1), (2), (2A), (3) and (4). referred to the Commission it or any case likely in such manner as is likely (8) All materials gathered by the Commission or authorised official and materials accompanying the reference under sub-section (1) of section 5 may be brought on record at such stage as the Commission may think fit." Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Another. Mt:hrChand Mahajan C.J. 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] regulate The procedure its own procedure and to be followed by the Commission is contained in section 7 which provides that subject to the provisions of this Act the Commission shall have powers of the Commission under sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (7) and (8) of section 6 and sub-sections (2), (4) and i.e., section 7 may be exercised by ( 6) of this section, any member thereof authorised by the Commission m this behalf. Sub-section (2) of section 7 provides as follows:- "7(2)-In making an investigation under clause (b) of section 3, the Commission shall act in accordance justice, shall follow as with the principles of natural Indian Evidence far as practicable the principles of the Act, 1872, and shall give the person whose case is being investigated, a reasonable opportunity of rebut ting any evidence adduced against him : and power of to compel production of documents limitation imposed by section 130 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Commission shall be deemed to, be a Court and its proceedings purposes of .sections 5 and 6 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891." the Commission shall not be legal proceedings subject Sub-section (3) of section 7 is in these terms : "7(3)-Any person whose case is being investigated the Commission may be represented by a pleader. a registered accountant or an employee duly authorised to act, on his behalf, provided that no person shall be entitled course of an enquiry under sub-sections (3) and (7) of section 6." to be present or represented in to be is not entitled The result of the assessee he these provisions that when the Commission is collecting the materials from different sources again'st to be present at those stages and take part in the enquiry, but after the material record then he can be present and has to be given a reasonable opportunity of rebutting any evidence may . have been .collected against him. Sub-section ( 4) in for considerable criticism of section 7 which came provides as follows :- ready and is placed on • • - \ • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 455 "7(4)-No person shall be entitled to inspect, call for, or obtain copies of, any documents, statement or to, obtained by or pro papers or materials furnished any authorized duced before, official Commission and after the Commission has ceased to the Central Government may exist such authority as in its discretion, allow such inspection and furnish such copies to any person : in any proceedings under this Act ; but this behalf appoint, may, the Commission or 1954 Sut'aj Mal I Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha, Sastri and Another. Mehr Chand Mahajan C. ]. Provided that, for the purpose of enabling person whose case or points in whose case is or are being investigated to rebut any evidence brought on the record against him, he shall, on application made in this behalf and on payment of such fees as may be this Act, be furnished prescribed by rules made under st~tements, papers with certified copies of documents, and materials brought on the record by the Commis sion." Sub-section (5) of section 7 is in these terms :- "7 (5)-Save in cases the Commission may exercise its powers under section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in which (a) no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against any person in any civil or criminal Court for any evidence given or produced by the Commission, and him in any proceedings before (b) no evidence so given or produced shall be in evidence against such person in any suit,. such Court, the Central admissible prosecution or other proceeding before except with sanction of the previous Government." The in for objection is sec that .came last section tion 8 which is in these terms : "8(1)-Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the materials brought on record shall be considered by all the three members of the Commission sitting together report of the Commission shall be in accord ance with the opinion of the majority. (2) After considering Government shall by order in writing direct report, the Central that such ~954 .Surai Mall Mohla · and Co. v. A. V. Vi.svanatha Sa.rtri and .Another. M1h< Chand Mllh•j•• C. J. 1 , 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19551 the person in respect of the the Indian Income- proceedings as it thinks fit under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, or tax Act, 1922, any other law, shall be taken against whose case the report relates income of any period commencing after the 31st day of December, 1938 ; and upon such a direction being given, such proceedings may be taken and completed law notwithstanding the restric tions contained in section 34 of the Income tax Act, 1922, or section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, or any other law and notwithstanding any lapse of time or any decision to a different effect given in the case by any Income-tax authority or Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. the appropriate Indian (3) ............................. . ( 4) In all assessment or recorded by reassessment proceedings taken in pursuance of a direction under sub-section (2), the findings the Commission on the ease or on provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6), be final ; but no proceedings taken in pursuance of such direction shall be a bar to the initiation of proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. the points referred to it shall, subject to (5) In respect of any order made in the course of proceedings issued taken in pursuance of a direction under sub-section. (2) the provisions of sections 30, 31, 33 and 33-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the corresponding provisions of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, shall not apply so far as matters declared final by sub-section ( 4) are concerned ; but the person concerned may, within 60 days of the date upon which is served with a copy of such order, by application in the prescribed form accompanied by a fee of Rs. 100 require Income-tax to refer to the High Court any question of law arising -Out of such order, and the provisions of sections 66 and 66-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, shall as far as may be apply, with the modifica tion that the. reference shall be heard by a Bench of the appropriate Commissioner of less than three Judges of the High Court. (6) ............................. . thereupon S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 457 (7). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary con tained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, any evidence in the case admitted before Commission or an authorized official shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings directed to be under su -section 2)." b ( - time when impugned Act there could possibly be taken no exception It was not and .could not be denied that the powers vested in the Commission and the procedure prescribed is more comprehensive and than those contained in the Indian Income-tax drastic impugned statute was Act. · At passed its contents on the ground of constitutionality of its provisions, and the powers conferred on the Commission and the procedure it was authorized to follow were well within the ambit of the Legislative power of the Central Legislature. The admittedly was impugned statute good law till the coming into force of the Constitution. When India' became a sovereign democratic Republic on 26th January, 1950, the validity of all laws had to be touchstone. of the new Constitution and tested on the Constitmion have to stand test for their validity on the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. the coming into force of laws made before The points that require consideration in the case are whether the provisions of section 5(1), sections 5(4), 6, 7 and 8 or any parts thereof contravene the guarantee laws and of the..., equality of equal protection of the before the law, or whether the impugned provisions of the Act are based on a valid classification which is rational in view of the objects of the Act. A further point is whether section 6(5) of the Act offends against article 20( 3) of the Constitution. Mr. P. R. Das for the petitioner attacked the provi sions of section 5(1) of the Act on a two-fold ground : (1) That the section was not based on any valid classification ; the word "substantial" being vague and uncertain and having no fixed meaning, could furnish no basis for any classification at all ; (2) That the Central Government was entitled by section to discriminate between one person and another it was authorized to pick and the same class and the provisions of 1954 suraj Mall Mohta and Co. A. v. i;~vanatha Sastri and Another. Mehr Chand Mahaja.1 C. J. ' 1 954 Suraj Mall Molda and Co. v. A. V. Visuanatha Sastri and Another. MthrChand Mahajan C. J. ' 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] I . choose the cases of persons who fell within the group It those who had substantial1y evaded taxation. it chose, send the case of one person to the could, Commission and show to another person though both by not sending his case to the Commission of these persons be within the group of those who have evaded the payment of tax to a substantial extent. favouritism regarding the that assuming if his contention As regards sub-section ( 4) of section 5 the learned this section had no independent counsel contended that existence and wa< bound to fall with sub-section (1) of section S, invalidity of that section prevailed. In the alternative, he contend that sub-se, ction ( 1) was valid even then sub-section ( 4) had to be declared void because it to the Commission to pick and gave arbitrary power the clause was highly choose and discriminatory in character an evasion, whether substantial or insubstantial, came within ambit as well as within the ambit of section 34 of the Indian Income-tax •Act. secondly because inasmuch as The controls resulting it was said in black-marketing learned Solicitor-General combated all these the Act was based on a arguments and contended that that it only dealt with broad and rational classification, a group of persons who had evaded income-tax the beginning of the war, 1st January, 1939, to the period ending with 1st September, 1948, as a consequence of activities and huge profits. In other words, that group of persons who the Act only dealt with the class of war-profiteers. This was a came within class by itself and needed special fore the law did not offend against the equal protection It was suggest of the laws clause of the Constitution. ( 4) of persons coming under sub-section section S also belonged to the same class and therefore that section also could not be declared void. there was no prescribed substantial under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and the impugned Act and the procedure prescribed by the Act was a good substitute for that prescribed by the Indian Income-tax Act. further said procedure It was difference the same grounds treatment and in any case 1954 Suraj Mall Mohta anc!Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Another. Mehr Chant! Mahajan C. J. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 459 that section is the validity of section and was not In our judgment, it is not necessary in this case to the contentions raised by Mr. P. R. Das deal with all It will and combated by the learned Solicitor-General. be sufficient for the decision of this case to examine the respective contentions raised about the validity of sub section ( 4) of section 5 of the Act bec:mse the case of the petitioner was referred to the Commission under the provisions of this referred to the Commission by the Central Government under the provisions of section 5(1) and that being so, an enquiry really outside the scope of the present case. On the assumption there the Act is based on a valid fore that section 5 ( 1) of classification and deals with a group of persons who the class of war-profiteers which required came within special treatment and that the classification is rational and that reasonable grounds existed for making distinc that class and those who fell within tion between others who did not come within it, but without in any way deciding or even expressing any opinion on question, we proceed to examine the question whether sub-section ( 4) of section 5 under which proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner offends against the guarantee of equal protection of the laws given in article 14 of the Constitution. The first question whether sub-section ( 4) of section 5 deals with the same to have been grouped class of persons as are said together in sub-section (1) of section 5, as persons who to a substantial extent evaded payment of taxation on income : _in other words, does sub-section ( 4) of section 5 confer on the Commission the power merely to add to· included in section 5(1) by the the number of persons Central Government or does larger power the phraseology employed the Commission. On in the sub-section sub-section ( 1) of section 5 limitations contained in learned Solicitor-General. for by Sub-section (4) which has been set out above in clear that some person Commission "has other than the person whose case is being investigated has evaded payment of taxation on income, ...... it may 11-87 S. C. India/59. requires consideration reason to believe terms provided unambiguous that where is difficult contended it confer to read therein - • 1954 Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Saslri and Another. Mehr Chand Mahajan C. J. 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955) to a is not the person whose case the Central Government." repeat the phraseology used in make a report to It does section 5 ( 1) that some person other than is being investigated "have to a substantial extent evaded pay ment of taxation on income." On no principle of con struction of statutes can the words "substantial extent" be read in sub-clause (a) of section 5(4). On a plain reading of the section it is clear that the sub section to persons who made limited only extraordinary profits and to a substantial extent evaded to all per payment of taxation on income, but applies sons who may have evaded payment of taxation on irrespective of whether the evaded profits are income, In other respects also the substantial or insubstantial. phraseology of the section is different from that em ployed ( 1) the Centr:al Govern of section 5 provided that a per ment "has prima facie reasons for believing extent evaded payment of son has to a substantial taxation on (a) of section 5(4) to believe that the preson whose case is being some person other investigated taxation on evaded payment of income''. The prima facie belief of the Central Govern ment is substituted by the expression "The Commission has reason to believe''. The scope of the section is thus different from the scope of section 5 ( 1) of the Act, both in its extent and range. limited to profits made within any particular period and brings within its range all persons, whether traders, business men, professional people, whoever they may be, who may have at any time evaded payment of taxation on income for whatever cause. in sub-section ( 1) of section 5. Sub-section that where income'', while clause that if the Commission "has reason It is not necessarily That being it obviously deals with the true scope or construction of sub section (4), the same class of persons who fall within the ambit of section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and are dealt with in sub section (1) of that section and whose incq_µie can be section. Assessees caught by proceeding under who have failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment under section 34 can be equated with. persons who are discovered 1954 Suraj Mall M ohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Another. Mehr Chand Mahajan C. J. - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 461 ' ~ possible ~ course of the report to hold ~settled that income-tax on the Commission, 'Indian Income-tax Act. to have evaded payment of Indian Income-tax Act.- It ·. ment of income-tax and do not in its application to everyone investigation conducted under section 5(1) incoµies. The result is that some of these persons can be dealt with under the provisions of Act XXX of 1947, at ·the choice of though the provisions of could also be proceeded with under section 34 of is not that all such persons who evade pay- truly disclose all facts necessary for their assess particulars or material is made under ment and against whom a sub-section ( 4) of section 5 of the impugned Act by' themselves form a class distinct from those who evade payment of income-tax and come within the ambit of It is well section 34 of the legal pro.ceedings the same rules of evidence article 14 assures and modes of procedure ; in other words, the same rule must exist for all in similar circumstances. It is also that this principle does not mean that every well settled law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstance, the same position. The State can by classification legislation and in relation to a law enacted purposes of subject, but the classification permis on a particular sible must be based on some real and substantial distinc tion bearing a just and to be attained and cannot be made objects sought arbitrarily and without any substantial basis. Classifi in classes which have a cation means in common proper- systematic relation, usually found is nothing uncommon in characteristics between either persons who are discovered as evaders of income-tax during an investigation conducted under section 5(1) Income-tax to have evaded payment of income-tax. Both Officer these kinds of persons have common properties and require have common characteristics and j. equal treatment. We that both section 34 thus hold $. of the Indian Income-tax Act and sub-section ( 4) of .. ties and characteristics. There in properties .-. determine who should be regarded those who are discovered by segregation as a class reasonable therefore relation • 1954 Suraj Mall Mofda and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Another. Mehr Chand Mahajan C. J. ~ 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19551 ; - - impugned Act <lea! with all persons'~ ,section 5 of who have similar characteristics and similar properties, the common they are · being their income an<l persons who have not truly disclosed have evaded payment of taxation on income. characteristics fact, Indian income there was than following taxation on their The next question procedure prescribed by • the concealed profits of those who have.~ requires determination is whether the procedure prescribed by Act XXX of 1947 for discovering evaded payment of is sub stantially different and prejudicial the assessees the · procedure prescribed the Indian Income tax Act by section 34. The learned Solicitor-General contended impugned Act was a fair and good substitute for the procedure prescribed by Income-tax Act really no substantial difference-' justice two procedures. He urged between the could be fully done to those persons by following the new procedure and as a matter of it would be more truly done by following the procedure under the the procedure under the impugned Act Indian Income-tax Act. This argument, in our opinion, It is clear that if persons dealt with by the im_pugned Act / are deprived of the substantial and valuable privileges which they would otherwise have if they were dealt with under the Indian Income-tax Act, in that situation it is the discriminatory procedure no defence the course of justice. The matter has to be the point of view of the ordinary reasonable man and not from the point of view of the Government. The ordinary reasonable man would say,_. when the stakes are heavy and serious charge of evasion against him, why one person the advantage substantially of the procedure prescribed by the Indian Income-tax Act, while another person similarly situated It be deprived of it. application of article 14 be considered. to the facts of this case has income-tax are made similarly placed to be decided in all such cases. advances judged from should have the question to say that this aspect ' The next question procedure prescribed by the for consideration is whether the..l.1 impugned Act in regard to 1954 Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Another. Mehr Chand Mahajan C. J. • - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 463 investigation inasmuch as treatment even into one. That income-tax. The the Act, and operates itself finds and gathers investigator and the judge - . with under section 34, the Commission has after the ambit of sub-section ( 4) of section 5 substantially different to the prejudice of +the same Commission who has already arrived at these persons have evaded is bound persons. So far as we can see been given discriminatory whose cases are referred to under section 5(1) of the Commission Act " persons whose cases are referred ~, the Act it is the prim a f acie belief of persons similarly situate with those who are proceeded these assessees have from those the case of to under section 5(1) of the Government reference to be made to the Commis in the case of persons coming reason to believe income-tax and on its refer their cases to prim a f acie conclusion that they have evadc;d paymenJ in this situation are rolled is not so in cases this circum coming under section 5(1). Apart stance, procedures, that enables sion and form an opinion ; while within Commission report the Government there are substantial differences between the inter alia, in the following matters :- 1. Under the provisions of section 8 of the impugned the findings of fact given by the Commission as to factum and extent of the evasion are final and con- dusive and thus the persons against whom proceedings are taken under section 5( 4) are deprived of the rights Qf appeal, second appeal and revision conferred by sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act on assessees whose .cases are dealt with under the procedure of section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. ,A person ~.who has evaded payment of income-tax and is proceed to have escaped ed with under section 34 and is held to the Appellate income-tax has a right of appeal Assistant Commissioner Income challenge all the findings of fact given by the If he does not get relief from the Appellate tax Officer. Assistant Commissioner, he is entitled to go before Appellate Tribunal under section 33 and can challenge all the findings of fact given by tbe Income-tax Officer. the other hand, a person dealt with under section 5 ( 4) of the impugned Act has no such right. The learn the constitution ed Solicitor-General contended Income-tax """ Act, ), On '954 Surqj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V., Visvanatha Sastri and Another. Mehr Chand MahaJan C. J. 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] ' the constitution of the Commission by _ ~ tribunal as two other responsible persons and it was a good qf the Commission was such rights of appeal, second appeal and substitute for the revision conferred by the Income-tax Act inasmuch as the Commission is comprised of a High Court Judge these sitting together were as good a totality of Income-tax Officer, Appellate persons comprising Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate TJibunaL In our opinion, itself cannot be held to be a sufficient safeguard and a rights of appeal and second good substitute for appeal and revision given by !he Income-tax Indian Act and there can thus be no doubt that the procedure prescribed by the impugned Act deprives a person who is dealt with under that Act of these valuable rights of second appeal and revision to challenge ques appeal, tions of fact decided by the Judge of thus a material and substantial difference There between two procedures, one prescribed by impugned Act and the other prescribed by the Indian Income-tax Act. instance. -'" - • operation and the assessment has the fullest Income-tax Act to inspect that are

#2. When an assessment on escaped or evaded income is made under the provisions of section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, all the provisions for arriving at assessment provided under section 23(3) come to be made on all relevant materials and on evidence and the assessee the record ordinarily has and all documents and materials to be used against him. Under the provisions of section 37 of the Indian the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer are judicial proceedings and all the incidents of such to be observed before is arrived at. In other words, the assessee would have a right to inspect the record and all relevant documents before he is called upon to lead evidence in rebuttal. This right has not been taken away by any express provisions of the Income-tax Act but the impugned Act contains a mandate in sub-section ( 4) of section 7 to the effect that "no person shall be entitled for, or obtain copies of, any documents, statement or papers or materials furnished the Commission or to, obtained by or produced before any authorized official in any proceedings under judicial proceedings have to inspect, call the result ,4 • 1954 1 Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. V isuanatha Sastri and Another. Mehr Chand Mahajan C. J. S.C.R.. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 465 law and investigated to sub-section in whose case is or are being judicial proceeding a person would have ( 4) which says Act." There is a proviso the person whose case that for the purpose of enabling or points rebut any· evidence brought on the record against him, he shall, on application made in this behalf and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed by rules, be furnished with certified copies of documents, state ments, papers and materials brought on the record by the Commission. This little mer.cy shown to the person whose case is being investigated by the Commission no substitute for the fullest right of inspection which the Code of Civil Procedure. under ordinary in a order to meet the case made against him. He is entitled to get copies of that portion of the materials which is brought on the record and which is going to be used against him and it is clear that portions of the material which are in his favour and which have not the record may not be available to been brought on him at all. He is not even entitled to see all the books of account which may have been impounded under the Act and taken possession of by the Commission. It in those books may well happen that which contain the rebuttal evidence, but the assessee is not not entitled even entitled possession of the Commission and take copies of those entries which are favourable to him and which would the case made against the assessee completely demolish by the Commission. The procedure thus prescribed this matter by substantially the procedure pre prejudicial It was not scribed under the disputed by in sections procedure prescribed by the impugned Act 6 and 7 was more drastic than the prqcedure prescribed in sections 37 and 38 of the Indian Income-tax Act. Again, so far as the procedure for reference under sub is also to a section ( 4) of section 5 the assessee. There is no certain extent prejudicial is in this matter in the first stages some similarity to be in the procedure followed for income both under section 34 of the catching evaded Indian Income-tax Act and under the provisions of Indian Income-tax Act. learned Solicitor-General to see his own books which are in to the assessee impugned Act is concerned, their copies. The assessee there are entries to have • - .... " 1954 SuraJ Mall Mohta and c~. v. A. V. Vi.n1anatha Sastri and Anottf.r. Mehr Chand Mahajan C. ]. 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19551 sub-section that makes all that though under (4) of section 5 tentatively arrived at sub-section ( 4) of section 5 of the impugned Act ; but the overall picture the Indian Income-tax Act the same officer who first arrives at a the case, , his tentative conclusion hears and decides decision is not final but is subject to appeal, while under the provisions of decision of the Commission the absence of the assessee. becomes final when in his presence, and the difference two procedures. If there was a provision between Investigation the conclusions of reviewing investigators and .Commission when acting both as judges, substantial two procedures as would bring discrimination the case within article 14; but as pointed out above, there is no provision of that kind in the impugned Act. It may also be pointed out that under the provisions income or section 34 evaded income is limited to a maximum period of eight the provisions of sub-section years, while under ( 4) of section 5 it is not limited to any period and this cer tainly operates · to the detriment of those dealt with under sub-section ( 4) of section 5 of the impugned Act, and those dealt with under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. there might not have been such into escaped investigation in the in so far as it affects For the reasons given above we are of the opmton that sub-section ( 4) of section 5 and the procedure pre scribed by the · impugned Act 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. In reaching this decision we from expressing any opinion, as above pointed refrain out, on the validity- of section 5 (1) of the Act or on the impugned Act question whether section 6(5) of offends against the provisions of article 20 sub-clause (3) of the Constitution. We accordingly direct that an appropriate writ be Investigation Commission prohibiting it from taking any proceedings impugned Act against the petitioner. The petitioner will have his costs of these proceedings. the provisions of issued against Writ issued. 1 - - •