# DEVANAGERE COTTON MILLS LTD. DEVANAGERE v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1962] 1 S.C.R. 556
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1960
- **Bench:** S. K. Das, J. L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah, J. c. SHAH, T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/devanagere-cotton-mills-ltd-devanagere-v-the-deputy-commissioner-chitradurga-2147
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Cotton Gess-Assessment-Notice by Deputy CommissionerValidity-Collector, Meaning of-Interpretation of Statute-Indian
Cotton Cess Act, r923 (r4 of r923), ss. 2(a), 7-General Clauses
Act, r897 (ro of r897), s.-2(II).
·
The appellants declined to carry out the requisition by the
Deputy Commissioner to submit certain returns on the ground
that under 'the Indian Cotton Cess Act, r923, which Act became
applicable to the State of Mysore by the Part B States Laws
Act, r95r, the Collector alone could assess the cess and the
Deputy Commissioner not being a "Collector" within the meaning of the Act and not being an officer appointed by the Central
Government to perform the duties of the Collector under the
Act, the demand for return was "unconstitutional",
The case
of the appellant was that the General Clauses Act, i897, was
not extended by the Part B States Laws Act, r95r, to the State
of Mysore, and, therefore, the definition of "Collector" under
the General Clanses Act could not be requisitioned in aid to
interpret the expression "Collector" used in the Act.
Held, that the effect of s. 3 of the General Clauses Act,
i897, was to incorporate it as it were an interpretation section
in all the Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of the General Clauses Act. Whenever a Central
Act or Regulation made after March II, r897, was enacted, the
General Clauses Act became. statutoril)I a part thereof and by
its own force applied to the mterpretat10n of every such enactment.
Its vitality did not depend upon any territorial extension.
Section z(a) of the Indian Cotton Cess Act, r923, does not
really give the definition of "Collector", and for determining
who the Collector under the Act is, one has to go to the General
Clauses Act.
CrVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 89 of 1960 .
•
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April
12, 1957, of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition
No. 15 of 1956.
J
,.
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
557
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, V. L.
' 96'
N arasimhamoorty, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Devanagm cotton
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellants.
Mills Ltd.
R. Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen, for the responDevanagere
dents.
v.
The Deputy Com~
1961. March 24. The Judgment of the Court was missione" Chit>adelivered by
du,ga <>· Anothor
SHAH, J.-With a view to enable him to assess cotton cess payable by the appellants under the Indian
Cotton Cess Act, 1923-hereinafter called the Actthe Deputy Commissioner,
District Chitradurga,
Mysore State purporting to exercise powers under s. 6
of the Act called upon the managing agents of the
appellants by letter dated January 13, 1956, to submit
in the prescribed form a statement showing the total
quantity of cotton consumed or processed in the factory. The appellants declined to carry out the requisition and filed a petition in the High Court of Mysore
for a writ of mandamus, prohibition or other appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the Deputy
Commissioner, Chitradurga and the State of Mysore
from "collecting assessments under the Indian Cotton
Cess Act XIV of 1923" in enforcement of the order
dated January 13, 1956.
The sole ground urged in support of the petition
was that the appellants were bound to furnish returns
under the Act to the Collector who alone could assess
the cess, and the Deputy Commissioner not being a
"Collector" within the meaning of the Act and not
being an officer appointed by the Central Government
to perform the duties of the Collector under the Act,
the demand for returns was "unconstitutional". The
High Court rejected the petition and against that
order, this appeal is preferred with certificate of fitness
granted by the High Court.
The area in which the mill of the appellants is situate was originally part of the Indian State of Mysore.
The State of Mysore became a Part B State within
the Union of India on the promulgation of the Constitution on January 26, 1950. The Act was one of the
many

## Text

I96I
March 24.
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
DEVANAGERE COTTON MILLS LTD.
DEVANAGERE
v.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA
AND ANOTHER
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH,
J. c. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
Cotton Gess-Assessment-Notice by Deputy CommissionerValidity-Collector, Meaning of-Interpretation of Statute-Indian
Cotton Cess Act, r923 (r4 of r923), ss. 2(a), 7-General Clauses
Act, r897 (ro of r897), s.-2(II).
·
The appellants declined to carry out the requisition by the
Deputy Commissioner to submit certain returns on the ground
that under 'the Indian Cotton Cess Act, r923, which Act became
applicable to the State of Mysore by the Part B States Laws
Act, r95r, the Collector alone could assess the cess and the
Deputy Commissioner not being a "Collector" within the meaning of the Act and not being an officer appointed by the Central
Government to perform the duties of the Collector under the
Act, the demand for return was "unconstitutional",
The case
of the appellant was that the General Clauses Act, i897, was
not extended by the Part B States Laws Act, r95r, to the State
of Mysore, and, therefore, the definition of "Collector" under
the General Clanses Act could not be requisitioned in aid to
interpret the expression "Collector" used in the Act.
Held, that the effect of s. 3 of the General Clauses Act,
i897, was to incorporate it as it were an interpretation section
in all the Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of the General Clauses Act. Whenever a Central
Act or Regulation made after March II, r897, was enacted, the
General Clauses Act became. statutoril)I a part thereof and by
its own force applied to the mterpretat10n of every such enactment.
Its vitality did not depend upon any territorial extension.
Section z(a) of the Indian Cotton Cess Act, r923, does not
really give the definition of "Collector", and for determining
who the Collector under the Act is, one has to go to the General
Clauses Act.
CrVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 89 of 1960 .
•
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April
12, 1957, of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition
No. 15 of 1956.
J
,.
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
557
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, V. L.
' 96'
N arasimhamoorty, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Devanagm cotton
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellants.
Mills Ltd.
R. Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen, for the responDevanagere
dents.
v.
The Deputy Com~
1961. March 24. The Judgment of the Court was missione" Chit>adelivered by
du,ga <>· Anothor
SHAH, J.-With a view to enable him to assess cotton cess payable by the appellants under the Indian
Cotton Cess Act, 1923-hereinafter called the Actthe Deputy Commissioner,
District Chitradurga,
Mysore State purporting to exercise powers under s. 6
of the Act called upon the managing agents of the
appellants by letter dated January 13, 1956, to submit
in the prescribed form a statement showing the total
quantity of cotton consumed or processed in the factory. The appellants declined to carry out the requisition and filed a petition in the High Court of Mysore
for a writ of mandamus, prohibition or other appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the Deputy
Commissioner, Chitradurga and the State of Mysore
from "collecting assessments under the Indian Cotton
Cess Act XIV of 1923" in enforcement of the order
dated January 13, 1956.
The sole ground urged in support of the petition
was that the appellants were bound to furnish returns
under the Act to the Collector who alone could assess
the cess, and the Deputy Commissioner not being a
"Collector" within the meaning of the Act and not
being an officer appointed by the Central Government
to perform the duties of the Collector under the Act,
the demand for returns was "unconstitutional". The
High Court rejected the petition and against that
order, this appeal is preferred with certificate of fitness
granted by the High Court.
The area in which the mill of the appellants is situate was originally part of the Indian State of Mysore.
The State of Mysore became a Part B State within
the Union of India on the promulgation of the Constitution on January 26, 1950. The Act was one of the
many enactments of the Indian Legislature applied
Shah J.
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
196I
to the State of Mysore by the "Part B States Laws
D
-- c tt Act" 3 of 1951. The Act provides for the levy of a
evanagere
o on
•
.
Mills Ltd.
cess on cotton and for effectuatmg that purpose imDevanagere
poses by s. 6 a duty upon the owner of a mill to subv.
mit to the Collector monthly returns of cotton consum.
The _Deputy Com- ed or processed in the mill. The authority to assess
missioner, Chiera- cess is by s. 7 of the Act vested in the "Collector"'
durga S- Another
h' h
·
· th A t
w
c
t
__
w ic express10n m
e c means
m re1erence
o
shah J.
cotton consumed in a mill, the Collector of the district
in which the mill is situated or any other officer
appointed by the Central Government to perform the
duties of a Collector under this Act". The powers of
the Collector under the Act can therefore be exercised
by the Collector of the district in which the mill is
situate or by the officer appointed by the Central
Government to perform the duties of a Collector. It
is common ground that the Central Government has
not issued an order appointing t-he Deputy Commissioners in the Mysore area to exercise powers under
the Act.
The power to assess cotton cess in the
Mysore State area can therefore be exercised by the
Collector and no other officer. The expression "Collector of the district" which is a component of the first
part of the definition is not defined in the Act. But the
General Clauses Act X of 1897 defines "Collector" as
meaning "in a Presidency town, the Collector of Calcutta, Madras or Bombay as the case may be, and
elsewhere the Chief Officer-in-charge of the revenue
administration of a district". The revenue administration of a district under the Mysore Land Revenue
Code is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner and he
is the chief officer-in-charge of the revenue administration of a district. The Deputy Commissioner is
therefore a Collector within the meaning of the Gene.
ral Clauses Act.
Counsel for the appellants however contends that
the General Clauses Act X of 1897 was not extended
by the Part B States Laws Act to the S1;ate of Mysore
and therefore the definition of "Collector" under the
General Clauses Act cannot be requisitioned in aid to
interpret the expression "Collector" used in the Act.
But the argument proceeds upon a fal!acy as to the
._ -
,
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
559
true nature of the General Clauses Act.
By s. 3 of
r96r
that Act, in all Central Acts and Regulations made D
-- c
evanagere
otton
after the commencement of the General Clauses Act,
Mills Ltd.
unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or
Devanagere
context, the various expressions therein set out shall
v.
have the meanings ascribed to them by that Act. The The .Deputy Comeffect of s. 3 is to incorporate it as it were as an inter- md •ssione;, ACh•trat t .
t"
·
JI C t 1 A t
d R
1 ·
urga ~
nother
pre a 10n sec 10n rn a
en ra
c s an
egu at10ns
_
made after the commencement of the General Clauses
Shah J.
Act.
Whenever the Central Act or Regulation made
after March 11, 1897, is enacted, the General Clauses
Act becomes statutorily a part thereof and by its own
force it applies to the interpretation of every such
enactment. Its vitality does not depend upon any
territorial extension.
Existence of a definition of the expression "Collector" in the Act in s. 2(a) is not necessarily indicative
of an intention that the General Clauses Act is not to
apply to the interpretation of that expression used in
that Act. The first part of s. 2, cl. (a) of the Act is
in truth not a definition at all: it merely states that
the Collector of the district in which the mill is situate
is the Collector for the purposes of the Act. For determining who the Collector is, one has to go to the
General Clauses Act. It is said that bodily importing the definition of "Collector" in the General
Clauses Act into s. 2(a) of the Act results in
tautology, because by the definition in the General
Clauses Act a Collector (outside the Presidency
towns) is an officer-in-charge of the revenue administration of a district. But by the definition in the
General Clauses Act, the quality of the power and
the duties of the officer concerned are indicated whereas by the use of the expression "of the district" in the
definition of Collector in s. 2(a) of the Act, the officerin-charge of the revenue administration of the district
within whose area the mill is situate is indicated.
There is in our judgment no tautology, and no ground
for not applying the definition of Collector in the
General Clauses Act to the interpretation of the Act.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.