# D.R. A1adhavakrishnaiah v. The income-tax Officer, Bangalore. Palanjali Sajtri

- **Citation:** [1954] 1 S.C.R. 537
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1953-04-04
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE Juruso1CT10N : Civil Appeals Nos. 209 and 210 of 1953
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/d-r-a1adhavakrishnaiah-v-the-income-tax-officer-bangalore-palanjali-sajtri-310
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

•
s:c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
537
D. · R. MAD HA V AKRISHNAIAH
v.
THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE.
f PATANJALI SASTRI
CHAND MAHAJAN,
s. R. DAS, GHULAM
C.J., MEHR
HASAN and J AGANN AD HAD AS JJ.]
FJl)(;nce Act (XXV of 1950), s. 13, proviso--Validity thcreofConstitution of Indian, Art. 277.
The assessee challenge<l the
jurisdiction
of
the
Income-tax
Officer, Special Survey
Circle,
Bangalore,
to
assess
income-tax
and Super-tax on his inco1ne accruing prior to April I, 1950, in the
State of Mysore, on the ground that the proviso to s. 13 of the
Indian Finance Act, 1950,
by virtue of which he was
exercising
his power was ultra vires and void as the Parliament had no power
to make a law authorising any officer appointed under the Indian
Income-tax Act to levy
tax under the Mysore law prior to the
Constitution.
It was
contended (i) that on general constitutional principles
the Union Parliament had no power to make a law having retrospective effect with reference
to pre-Constitution
period, (ii) that
the Parliament was also prohibited
by
Art. 277
from making a
law authorising such officers as -in the present case
to act in the
S,t.1te of Mysore :
Held, (repelling the contentions)
(i) that the Parliament had
such power vide the judgment delivered in Case No. 296 of 1951, (ii)
that while Art. 277 authorises the continued levy of taxes lawfully
levied by the Government of the State before the commencement
of the Constitution and their application to the same purposes
as before, even after the Constitution came
into
force,
there
is nothing in the article
to warrant any
implication
that such
taxes should
continue to be levied,. assessed and collected by the
same
State
authorities as
before the Constitution and there is
nothing in Art. 277 to preclude Parliament making a law providing
for -the levy and collection of income-tax and super-tax
under the
Mysore Act through authorities appointed
under the Indian Income-tax Act.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
Juruso1CT10N :
Civil
Appeals
Nos. 209 and 210 of 1953.
Appeals by
special leave against the Judgment
and Orders dated 4th April, 1953, of the High Court
of Judicature of Mysore at Bangalore (Medapa C. J·
and Vasudevamurthy J.)
in Civil
Petitions Nos. 20
and 21. of 1953.
5--94 S. C. lndia/59
Dec. IG
1953
1953
D.R.
A1adhavakrishnaiah
v.
The income-tax
Officer,
Bangalore.
Palanjali Sajtri
C.J.
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
M. Ramaswamy, Senior Advocate,
(B.
Neelakanta,
with him) for the appellant.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India,
(Porus
A. Mehta, with him) for the respondent.
1953. December 16. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
PATANJALI
SASTRJ
C.
J.-These
two
connected
appeals arise out of applications made to the High
Court of Judicature at Bangalore under Art. 226 of
the Constitution challenging the jurisdiction of the
Income-tax
Officer,
Special Survey
Circle,
Bangalore,
to assess the appellant to income-tax and super-tax on
his income accruing prior to April 1, 1950, in the State
of Mysore and praying for
the issue of appropriate
writs in that behalf. The applications were dismissed
by the court and leave to appeal having been refused,
the appellant has
brought these
appeals
by
special
leave of this court.
It is a matter of admission that the officer making
the ossessments
was an officer appointed under the
Indian
Income-tax
Act,
1922,
and that in
making
such assessments
he was applying the income-tax law
in force in the State of Mysore down to the end of the
year of account
1948-49.
The officer
was
exer~ising
jurisdiction in the State by virtue of the proviso to
section
13 of the Indian Finance Act, 1950, which
reads as follows ;-
Repeals and Savings.-(!) If immediately before the
lst day of April, 1950, there is in force in any Part B
State other than
J ammu and Kashmir or in Manipur,
Tripura or Vindhya Pradesh ·or in the me:cged territory
of Cooch-Behar any
law
relating to
income-tax or
.super-tax or tax on profits. of business, that law shall
cease
to have
effect except for

## Text

•
s:c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
537
D. · R. MAD HA V AKRISHNAIAH
v.
THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE.
f PATANJALI SASTRI
CHAND MAHAJAN,
s. R. DAS, GHULAM
C.J., MEHR
HASAN and J AGANN AD HAD AS JJ.]
FJl)(;nce Act (XXV of 1950), s. 13, proviso--Validity thcreofConstitution of Indian, Art. 277.
The assessee challenge<l the
jurisdiction
of
the
Income-tax
Officer, Special Survey
Circle,
Bangalore,
to
assess
income-tax
and Super-tax on his inco1ne accruing prior to April I, 1950, in the
State of Mysore, on the ground that the proviso to s. 13 of the
Indian Finance Act, 1950,
by virtue of which he was
exercising
his power was ultra vires and void as the Parliament had no power
to make a law authorising any officer appointed under the Indian
Income-tax Act to levy
tax under the Mysore law prior to the
Constitution.
It was
contended (i) that on general constitutional principles
the Union Parliament had no power to make a law having retrospective effect with reference
to pre-Constitution
period, (ii) that
the Parliament was also prohibited
by
Art. 277
from making a
law authorising such officers as -in the present case
to act in the
S,t.1te of Mysore :
Held, (repelling the contentions)
(i) that the Parliament had
such power vide the judgment delivered in Case No. 296 of 1951, (ii)
that while Art. 277 authorises the continued levy of taxes lawfully
levied by the Government of the State before the commencement
of the Constitution and their application to the same purposes
as before, even after the Constitution came
into
force,
there
is nothing in the article
to warrant any
implication
that such
taxes should
continue to be levied,. assessed and collected by the
same
State
authorities as
before the Constitution and there is
nothing in Art. 277 to preclude Parliament making a law providing
for -the levy and collection of income-tax and super-tax
under the
Mysore Act through authorities appointed
under the Indian Income-tax Act.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
Juruso1CT10N :
Civil
Appeals
Nos. 209 and 210 of 1953.
Appeals by
special leave against the Judgment
and Orders dated 4th April, 1953, of the High Court
of Judicature of Mysore at Bangalore (Medapa C. J·
and Vasudevamurthy J.)
in Civil
Petitions Nos. 20
and 21. of 1953.
5--94 S. C. lndia/59
Dec. IG
1953
1953
D.R.
A1adhavakrishnaiah
v.
The income-tax
Officer,
Bangalore.
Palanjali Sajtri
C.J.
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
M. Ramaswamy, Senior Advocate,
(B.
Neelakanta,
with him) for the appellant.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India,
(Porus
A. Mehta, with him) for the respondent.
1953. December 16. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
PATANJALI
SASTRJ
C.
J.-These
two
connected
appeals arise out of applications made to the High
Court of Judicature at Bangalore under Art. 226 of
the Constitution challenging the jurisdiction of the
Income-tax
Officer,
Special Survey
Circle,
Bangalore,
to assess the appellant to income-tax and super-tax on
his income accruing prior to April 1, 1950, in the State
of Mysore and praying for
the issue of appropriate
writs in that behalf. The applications were dismissed
by the court and leave to appeal having been refused,
the appellant has
brought these
appeals
by
special
leave of this court.
It is a matter of admission that the officer making
the ossessments
was an officer appointed under the
Indian
Income-tax
Act,
1922,
and that in
making
such assessments
he was applying the income-tax law
in force in the State of Mysore down to the end of the
year of account
1948-49.
The officer
was
exer~ising
jurisdiction in the State by virtue of the proviso to
section
13 of the Indian Finance Act, 1950, which
reads as follows ;-
Repeals and Savings.-(!) If immediately before the
lst day of April, 1950, there is in force in any Part B
State other than
J ammu and Kashmir or in Manipur,
Tripura or Vindhya Pradesh ·or in the me:cged territory
of Cooch-Behar any
law
relating to
income-tax or
.super-tax or tax on profits. of business, that law shall
cease
to have
effect except for the purposes of the
levy,
assessment
and
collection
of
income-tax and
super-tax in respect of any period not included in the
previous year
for the purposes
of assessment
under
..
the Indian · Income-tax Act, 1922, for the year ending
on· the 31st day of March, 1951, or for any subsequent
year, or,
as the case may be, the levy, assessment and
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
539
collection of the tax on profits of business for any
chargeable accounting period ending on or before the
31st day of March, 1949 :
Provided that any reference in any such law to an
officer, authority, tribunal or court shall be construed
as a reference to the corresponding officer, authority,
tribunal or court appointed or constituted under the
said Act, and if any question arises . as to who such
corresponding officer, authority, tribunal or court is,
the decision of the Central Government thereon shall
be final. ... "
It is contended that the proviso 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 the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to levy, assess and collect incometax and super-tax payable under the Mysore law prior
· to the commencement of the Constitution of India.
The contention is based on two grounds : namely,
firstly, on general constitutional principles the Union
'Parliament had no power to make a law having retros-
. pective operation with reference to the pre-Constitution
period ;
and
s~condly, the Union
Parliament
is
prohibited by
article·
277
of
the
Constitution
by necessary implication from making a law grafting
on the
Mysore
income-tax
law the machinery
for
assessment and collection provided under the Indian
·Income-tax
Act,
1922, for
purposes
of
assessment
· thereunder.
So far as the first ground
governed
by
the
judgment
Rajasthan
case
[Union of
'](abra (') l It remains only
ground
based
on
article
"thus :
is concerned, the case is
just
delivered
in
the
India
v. Madan
Gopal
to deal with the second
277.
That article reads
, .
"Ally taxes, duties, cesses or fees which, immediately
before
the commencement of this Constitution, were
•
. ,J,ieing lawfully levied by the Government of any State
:,,or.by, al!y municipality or other local authority arc
·' body . for, the
purposes · of the..
~tate, municipality,
, dist~i~t-~~0,pther
I01=~l ,.,area, .•• may, . notwithstanding,. ~hat
( 1) Infra. P 54'.
.. '
J953
.D.R.
Madhtna~
krishn11iah
v.
Thi Income-tax
Officer,
Bangalore.
Patanj11li S•stri
.. C;J.
1953
D.R.
MadhavaluisJmaioJ
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
Union List, continue to be levied and to be applied to
the same purposes until provision to the contrary is
made by Parliament by law."
It was urged that, inasmuch as the article authorises,
among others, the income-tax and super-tax which
was
being
lawfully levied
by
the Government
of
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
provision to the contrary is made by Parliament by
law, and no such
law was made by Parliament till
April 1, 1950, when the Indian Finance Act, 1950,
was enacted, it followed by necessary implication, the
Mysore law of income-tax must be applied for the
levy, assessment
and collection of such taxes and, as
the
legislative
power
conferred
on
Parliament by
article 245 is subject to the provisions of the Constitution including article 277, Parliament had no power to
legislate,
grafting
officers
and
authorities
appointed
under the Indian Income-tax Act, on the Mysore State,
for
the levy, assessment and collection of the tax
under the State law. We see no force in this argument. While article 277 undoubtedly authorises the
continued levy of taxes lawfully levied by the Government of the State before the commencement of the
Constitution
and
their
app!ication
to
the
same
purposes
as
before,
even
after
the Constitution
came into force, there is nothing in the article
10.
warrant
any
implication
that
such
taxes
should
continue
to be
levied, assessed and
collected
by
the
same State authorities as before the Constitution.
As the High Court rightly pointed out, it would
obviously
have been
inconvenient and unnecessary to
have oflircers appointed under the Mysore Income-tax
Act continuing to function
only in respect of the
earlier assessment
years
side
by
side
with
ofliccn
appointed
under
the
Indian
Income-tax
Act
also
functioning in the State for assessments subsequent to
April 1, 1950.
Both as a measure of economy and
witli a view to smooth and efficient lIWl3gement,
~
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
541
was obviously necessary and desirable that the changeover frorri the Mysore income-tax
law to
the
Indian
Income-tax Act should be in the way provided by section 13 of the
Indian Finance
Act,
1950.
We find
nothing in article 277 of the Constitution to preclude
Parliament making a law providing for the levy and
collection of income-tax and
super-tax
under
the
Mysore Act through authorities appointed under the
Indian Income-tax
Act.
Accordingly,
we
hold
that
the
Income-tax Officer,
Special Survey
Cirde, Bangalore, had jurisdiction to assess
the appellant to incometax and super-tax in respect of the income of
the
period prior to the commencement of the Constitution.
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.
(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 competent to make laws with respect to taxes for the tvho/e of lndiaConstitution competent to make laws having retrospective operation
for pre-Constitution period.
Respondent
was·
residing
and
carrying on business in the
District of Jodhpur in Rajasthan, a Part B State. His income
arising therein during the accounting year 1949-50
was sought to
be assessed to income-tax for
the year 1950-51 under the Indian
!nCQme-tax Act as
amended by
the Indian Finance Act. He
presented a petition under art. 226 to the High Court praying
1953
D:R.
Madhtwakrishnaiak
v.
The Income-tax
Offim,
I
Bangalore.
'·;
PataT/jali Sastri
C.J.
1953
Dec. 16.