Laxmanappa v. Union •f India

Judgment

1954 Laxmanappa HanurMntaaPfia v. Union •f India Mahajan C. ]. 1954 Oclo6w 2 1. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 773 to direct the issue of any of the writs the issue of which this position 1s discretionary with this Court. When was put to Mr. Sen, petitioner, he very fairly, and, in our opm10n, rightly conceded that it was not possible for him to com~at this position. learned counsel For the reasons given above this petition is bound to fail and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed. DEWAN BAHADUR SETH GOPAL DAS MOHTA "· THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., s. R. DAS, GH?LAM HASAN, BHAGWATI and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] Co11stitution of India, Art. 32-Taxation on Income (Investi gation Commission) Act, 1947 (XXX of 1947) s. 5(1)-lnvestigation and Report by Commission in respect of profits made by assessee and tax payable by him-Mutual. settlement assessee and Government-Petition under Art. 32-Whether competent. between J 1 ·~ - .• investigation the petitioner's The petitioner, a business man, was alleged investigation and report. During application to have made huge profits during the years of War and the Central Government acting under s. 5( 1) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Com mission) Act, 1947 (XXX of 1947) referred his case to the Investi gation Commission for pendency of settlement under the provisions of s. 8-A of Act XXX of 1947 was ~ accepted by the Central Government and in pursuance thereof the tax was made payable by instalments and the claim for evaded income-tax was thus finally settled by mutual agreement. When the instalments in the sum of Rs. 4 lacs odd still remained due the petitioner preferred the. present petition under Art. 32 of Constitution alleging that the entire proce~dings under Act XXX of 1947, were illegal, ultra vires, void and unconstitutional, that the Income-tax authorities were not competent to recover the amount due from him and that ss. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act were ultra vires as they infringed Arts. 14, 19(1) (£) and 31 of the Constitution. • Held, that the petition under Art. 32 was not competent as whatever had already been paid or whatever was still recoverable the petitioner was being recovered on the basis of

#1954. Seth!Gopal Diis Mohta v. Union of India and .A.1wt!ur 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] settlement between him and intended for relief against the voluntary actions of a person. the Government. Article 32 is not Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastn' (A.LR. 1954 S.C. 545) referred to. • ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 315 of 1954. Petition under article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. H. f. Umrigar, Narain Andfry, f. B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain for the petitioner. M. C. Setalvad, Attoreny-General for India, and C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India ( G. N. Joshi, Portis A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with them) for the respondents.

#1954. October 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by (Investigation Commission) Act, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J.-The. petitioner in this matter is a resident of Akola in the State of Madhya lines, i.e., Pradesh and carries on business in various oil mills, banking, money lending, etc. is alleged It that during the war years he made huge profits but evaded payment of tax. In the year 1948 the Central Government, acting under section 5(1) of the Taxation on Income 1947, referred his case to the Investigation Commission for respect of the profits made investigation and report, in 1st of commencing with by him during the period January, 1939, and ending on 31st of December, 1947. The Commission, after investigation, reported on 28th of February, 1951, and withheld from taxation was petitioner concealed in the sum of Rs. 27,25,363 and the tax payable by him amounted to Rs. 18,44,949. income for settlement under During the pendency of the investigation the peti the provisions of tioner applied section 8-A of Act XXX of 1947. This application was forwarded along with the report by the Commission to the Central Government. In the settlement application the applicant proposed that he was prepared to pay the sum of Rs. 18,44 ,949 as under : - ,-t - - 1954 Seth Gopal Das Mohla v. Union of India and A11other Mahajan C. J. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 775 On or before 25-6-1951-Rs. 3,44,949 On or before 25-3-1952-Rs. 5,00,000 On or before 25-3-1953-Rs. 5,00,000 On or before 25-3-1954-Rs. 5,00,000 :and that he be given credit for a sum of Rs. 32,034-4-6 :already paid by him1 The Central Government accepted this proposal and the claim for evaded income-tax was thus finally settled by mutual agreement. The assessee, for more subsequently, instalments and this was also granted time. to pay from time towards discharge of the Commencing from 16th of July, 1951, and till the the petitioner paid a total sum of 10th April, 1954, liability :about Rs. 14,00,000 voluntarily agreed to by him on account of the remains due and evaded. A sum of Rs. 4,50,000 still to the 25th of March, is payable in instalments up terms of the settlement the peti 1955. By one of the tioner undertook not to transfer, mortgage, charge or :alienate or encumber m any manner whatsoever any of immovable properties, barring stock-in his movable or the permission of trade of the business, except with the Commissioner of for the purpose of the , payment of tax due under the :settlement. Income-tax and except In June, 1954, after the decision by this Court of Suraj Mal Mohta v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Another(!), the petitioner preferred this petition under the provisions of article 32 of the Constitution alleging that the entire proceedings that he had been advised under the Act which had resulted m the imposition upon him of a· liability of Rs. 18,44,949 and in the pay amount of ment already made Rs. 13,99,175 were wholly illegal, ultra vires, void and authorities unconstitutional and amount of were not legally entitled Rs. 4,50,000 from him. the petition it was stated that sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Act XXX of 1947 were invalid and ultra vzres m so far as 14, 19(1) (f) contravene the Act and 31 of the Constitution and the Income-tax recover In the grounds of provlSlons of articles an aggregate that under (1) A. I. R. 1954 S. C. 545· 1954 Se1h Gopal Das Moh ta v. Union of India and Another Mahajan C. J. 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955} concealed procedure prescribed uncier alleged that for discovering Income-tax Act by section 34. there was no reasonable or equitable basis for classifica tion, the executive the Act gave unrestrained and absolute right to pick and choose and the same class of taxpayers .. to differentiate between It was the procedure prescribed profits was by the Act to the substantially different and was more prejudicial assessees Indian In the conclud ing paragraph of the petition it was prayed that an appropriate writ or direction be issued quashing the entire proceedings, and all orders passed under the Act by the Central Government and the respondent Com mission, proceedings whatsoever under against the It was further prayed that a direction be petitioner. the petitioner of a sum of issued for restoration Rs. 13,99,715-10-6 with interest at 6 per cent., and respondents be further restrained from taking that the any action against the petitioner recovery of the sum of Rse 4,50,000 with interest. the Act restraining taking Income-tax Act. for a settlement no In our judgment this petition is wholly misconceived. Whatever tax the petitioner has already paid, or what-· ever is still recoverable from him, is being recovered on the settlement proposed by him and; the basis of accepted by the Central Government. Because of his. request assessment was made against him by following the whole of the procedure of In this situation unless and until the petitioner can ·establish that his consent ·was impro that he is not bound thereby he cannot complain that any of his rights fundamental for which he can claim relief has been contravened under article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 of the Constitution is not voluntary if any, lies in other appropriate proceedings. relief against remedy, actions of a person. His procured and intended The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that apparent! y the for a settlement seems t<> have been made under the pressure of circumstances and in view of the coercive machinery of Act XXX of circumstances 1947 and the settlement arrived in such application - • • • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 777 was not binding and could not be enforced. Whatever be the merits of such a contention, it obviously cannot be raised in an application made under the provisions of article 32 of the Constitution. The investigating such allegations is elsewhere. The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. 1954 Seth Gopal Das Moh/a v. Union of India. and Anolhtr Mahtifan C. ]. Petition dismissed. THE STATE OF BOMBAY v. BHANJI MUNJI AND ANOTHER. I MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS and VENKATARAMA AvYAR JJ.] 1954 October 12. Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1) (f), 31(2)-Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Bombay Act XXXIll of 1948), ss. 5(1) and 6(4) (a) as amended by Bombay Act II of 1950 and Bombay Act XXXIX of 1950-Whether ultra vires the Cons1;1e<tion-Requisi tion of premises under s. 4(3) of the Act-Validity-Onus-Statute publtc purpose - I<cqurstiiu,, af 1u·orn1,,-Validity. l-F hether must contain in express Sections 5(1) and 6(4) (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 194/i (Bombay Act XXX!II of 19t8) as amended are not vr;·.J Arts. 19( I) (f), and 31 (2) of the Constitution. Article 19(1) (£) read with clause (5) postulates the existence of property which can be enjoyed and over which rights can be restrictions contem exercised because In ·the present plated by clause (5) cannot be brought case the right to occupy the premises has gone, as also the right to transfer, assign, let or sub-let. What is left is merely the husk of title in the lease-hold. Art. 19(1) (£), therefore, is not attracted. reasonable into play. otherwise The Bombay Larid Requisition Act, 1948, provides for com pensation in the requisitions were made for a public purpese. Therefore, the provisions of Art. 31(2) of the Constitu tion are complied with . s. 8 and . A statute is_ not in~~l!d for . the reason the purpose which prol":r'Y is reqmslt!oned 1s not stated in express terms the statute 1:self provided from intendment of the Act it can_ be gathered that the property is acquired either for th_c: p.irpose ot the State or for any public pnrpose and that the mtentlo1' was to benefit the community at large. the whole tenor and - .. ,