# Laxmanappa HanurMntaaPfia v. Union •f India

- **Citation:** [1955] 1 S.C.R. 773
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1954-04-10
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan C.J, s. R. DAS, Gh?Lam Hasan, Bhagwati, Venkatarama Ayyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/laxmanappa-hanurmntaapfia-v-union-f-india-1199
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Co11stitution of
India, Art. 32-Taxation on Income (Investigation 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
between
assessee
and
Government-Petition under Art. 32-Whether competent.
The petitioner, a business man, was alleged 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 Commission) Act, 1947 (XXX of 1947) referred his case to the Investigation
Commission for
investigation and report.
During
the
pendency of the
investigation
the
petitioner's
application
for
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 the
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
from the petitioner was being recovered on the basis of the
1954
Laxmanappa
HanurMntaaPfia
v.
Union •f India
Mahajan C. ].
1954
Oclo6w 2 1.
1954.
Seth!Gopal Diis
Mohta
v.
Union of India
and .A.1wt!ur
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
settlement between him and the Government.
Article 32 is not
intended for relief against the voluntary actions of a person.
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
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J.-The. petitioner in this
matter is a resident of Akola in the State of Madhya
Pradesh and carries on business in various lines, i.e.,
oil
mills, banking, money lending, etc. It is alleged
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
(Investigation
Commission)
Act,
1947,
referred his case to the Investigation
Commission for
investigation and report, in respect of the profits made
by him during the period
commencing
with
1st of
January, 1939, and ending on 31st of December, 1947.
The Commission, after investigation, reported on the
28th of February,
1951,
that
the
income
of the
petitioner
concealed
and withheld from taxation was
in the sum of
Rs. 27,25,363 and the
tax
payable by
him amounted to Rs. 18,44,949.
During the pendency of the investigation the petitioner applied
for settlement under the provisions of
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
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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
775
: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 f

## Text

-
.•
J
1
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
773
to direct the issue of any of the writs the issue of which
1s discretionary with this Court. When
this position
was
put to Mr. Sen, the
learned
counsel for the
petitioner, he very fairly, and, in our opm10n, rightly
conceded that it was not possible for him to
com~at
this position.
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 (Investigation 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
between
assessee
and
Government-Petition under Art. 32-Whether competent.
The petitioner, a business man, was alleged 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 Commission) Act, 1947 (XXX of 1947) referred his case to the Investigation
Commission for
investigation and report.
During
the
pendency of the
investigation
the
petitioner's
application
for
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 the
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
from the petitioner was being recovered on the basis of the
1954
Laxmanappa
HanurMntaaPfia
v.
Union •f India
Mahajan C. ].
1954
Oclo6w 2 1.
1954.
Seth!Gopal Diis
Mohta
v.
Union of India
and .A.1wt!ur
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
settlement between him and the Government.
Article 32 is not
intended for relief against the voluntary actions of a person.
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
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J.-The. petitioner in this
matter is a resident of Akola in the State of Madhya
Pradesh and carries on business in various lines, i.e.,
oil
mills, banking, money lending, etc. It is alleged
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
(Investigation
Commission)
Act,
1947,
referred his case to the Investigation
Commission for
investigation and report, in respect of the profits made
by him during the period
commencing
with
1st of
January, 1939, and ending on 31st of December, 1947.
The Commission, after investigation, reported on the
28th of February,
1951,
that
the
income
of the
petitioner
concealed
and withheld from taxation was
in the sum of
Rs. 27,25,363 and the
tax
payable by
him amounted to Rs. 18,44,949.
During the pendency of the investigation the petitioner applied
for settlement under the provisions of
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
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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
775
: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,
subsequently,
asked
for more
time to pay
these
instalments and this was also granted
from time
to
time.
Commencing from 16th of July, 1951, and till the
10th April, 1954,
the
petitioner
paid a total sum of
:about Rs. 14,00,000
towards discharge of the liability
voluntarily agreed to by him on account of the tax
evaded. A sum of Rs. 4,50,000 still remains due and
is payable in instalments
up
to the 25th
of March,
1955.
By one of the terms of the settlement the petitioner undertook not to transfer, mortgage, charge or
:alienate or encumber m any manner whatsoever any of
his movable or immovable properties, barring stock-intrade of the business, except with the permission of
the
Commissioner of
Income-tax and except for the
purpose
of the , payment
of the tax due under the
:settlement.
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 he had been advised that the entire proceedings
under the Act which had resulted m the imposition
upon him of a· liability of Rs. 18,44,949 and in the payment
already
made
of
an aggregate
amount
of
Rs. 13,99,175 were wholly illegal, ultra vires, void and
unconstitutional and that
the Income-tax
authorities
were not legally entitled to recover
the
amount of
Rs. 4,50,000 from him. In the grounds of 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 they
contravene
the
provlSlons of articles
14, 19(1) (f)
and 31 of the
Constitution and that under the Act
(1) A. I. R. 1954 S. C. 545·
1954
Seth Gopal Das
Mohla
v.
Union of India
and A11other
Mahajan C. J.
1954
Se1h Gopal Das
Moh ta
v.
Union of India
and Another
Mahajan C. J.
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955}
there was no reasonable or equitable basis for classification,
and that
the
Act
gave
to the executive
unrestrained and absolute right to pick and choose and
to differentiate between
the same class of taxpayers ..
It was
also
alleged that the procedure prescribed
by the
Act for
discovering
concealed
profits wassubstantially different and was
more prejudicial to the
assessees than
the
procedure prescribed
uncier the
Indian
Income-tax Act by section 34. In the concluding 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
Commission,
and
restraining
them
from
taking
any
proceedings
whatsoever
under
the
Act
against the
petitioner. It was further prayed that a direction be
issued for restoration to the petitioner of a sum of
Rs. 13,99,715-10-6
with interest at 6 per cent., and
that the respondents
be further restrained from taking
any action against the petitioner
for
the
recovery of
the sum of Rse 4,50,000 with interest.
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 basis of
the settlement
proposed
by him and;
accepted by the
Central
Government. Because of his.
request
for a settlement
no
assessment
was
made
against him by following the whole of the procedure of
the
Income-tax Act. In this situation unless and until
the petitioner can ·establish that his consent ·was improperly
procured and that he is not bound thereby he
cannot complain that any of his fundamental
rights
has been
contravened
for
which he can claim relief
under article 32 of the
Constitution. Article 32 of the
Constitution is not
intended
for relief against the
voluntary
actions of a person.
His remedy, if any,
lies in other appropriate proceedings.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
apparent! y the
application for a settlement seems
t<>
have been
made under the pressure of circumstances
and in view of the coercive
machinery of Act XXX of
1947 and the settlement arrived in such
circumstances
-
•
•
•
-
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
forum
for
investigating such allegations is elsewhere.
The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed
with costs.
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.]
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-Requisition of premises under s. 4(3) of the
Act-Validity-Onus-Statute
-
l-F hether must contain in express terms the
publtc purposeI<cqurstiiu,, af 1u·orn1,,-Validity.
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
ultra
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
exercised because
otherwise the reasonable
restrictions contemplated by clause (5) cannot be brought
into play. In ·the present
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.
The Bombay Larid Requisition Act, 1948, provides for compensation in
s. 8 and the requisitions were
made for
a public
purpese. Therefore, the provisions of Art. 31(2) of the Constitution are complied with .
. A statute is_ not in~~l!d for . the reason that the purpose
for
which prol":r'Y is reqmslt!oned 1s not stated in express terms
in
the statute 1:self provided from the whole tenor and
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.
1954
Seth Gopal Das
Moh/a
v.
Union of India.
and Anolhtr
Mahtifan C. ].
1954
October 12.