LAGDISH SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs. THE C.I.T LUCKNOW

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1348/1974Supreme Court[1986] 3 S.C.R. 19816 July 1986Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: R.S. PATHAK, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jagdish Sugar Mills, a public limited company, was in liquidation. It owed Rs. 8,58,893/5/6 to the State of Uttar Pradesh for arrears of cane-cess. In recovery proceedings, the Collector of Deoria auctioned the assessee's mills and properties on November 10, 1955, for Rs. 24,00,000 (land, building, machinery, parking grounds) and Rs. 1,80,000 (moveable properties). The total sale price of Rs. 25,80,000 was paid by the purchaser on December 8, 1955. However, the sale certificate was issued on July 4, 1956, due to objections raised by the assessee. For the assessment year 1957-58 (accounting year ended October 31, 1956), the Income-tax Officer sought to tax the excess amount received on the sale of buildings, machinery, and plant under Section 10(2)(vii) and Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The ITO computed profits under Section 10(2)(vii) at Rs. 10,07,000 and capital gains under Section 12B at Rs. 10,23,210. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the High Court upheld the ITO's decision. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the sale of the assessee's properties falls within the scope of Section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court reasoned that while the sale was by auction, the assessee had voluntarily engaged in an activity (carrying on business and incurring cane-cess) which subjected it to statutory provisions, including recovery by auction sale in case of default. This implied consent to the statutory framework. The Court referred to Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. v. State of Madras, and R.E. Lachman Das Mohanlal & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that the sale must be regarded as having taken place on the date the sale certificate was issued, which was July 4, 1956. The Court endorsed the High Court's view that under Rule 285-M of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, the sale certificate itself operates as a valid transfer of property. Therefore, the property is deemed to have vested in the purchaser only upon the issuance of the certificate, and not from the date of the auction. The Court also clarified that Section 65 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relied upon by the assessee, was excluded by the specific provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Consequently, Section 12B was attracted to the sale.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the auction sale of the assessee's properties falls within the scope of Section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, considering the assessee's contention that an auction sale is not a voluntary sale. The assessee argued that Section 10(2)(vii) requires a voluntary sale, and an auction sale, being compulsory, does not meet this criterion. The revenue contended that the sale, even if by auction, was a consequence of the assessee's voluntary activity of carrying on business and incurring cane-cess liability, thus implying consent to the statutory recovery mechanism. 2. Whether the sale of the properties is to be considered as having taken place on November 10, 1955 (date of auction) or July 4, 1956 (date of sale certificate issuance), for the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which became effective from April 1, 1956. The assessee argued that the sale was complete on November 10, 1955, when the auction was held, and the property vested in the purchaser, thus predating the applicability of Section 12B. The revenue contended that the sale was effective only upon the issuance of the sale certificate on July 4, 1956, making it subject to Section 12B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(vii),Section 12B,Section 65

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I~ \ I lAGDISH SUGAR MILLS v. C.J.T. [PATHAK,J.] 199 Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to explain why the excess amount which he had received on sale of the buildings, machinery and plant over the difference between the original and the written down value should not he subjected to tax under cl. (vii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 10 and under -s. 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee contended (i) that an aucµon sale being a compulsory sale was not a sale within the meaning of cl. (vii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 10; and (ii) that the sale having been completed prior to March 31, 1956, it did not attract the provisions of s. 12B relating to capital gains, which became effective from April 1, 1956 only. The Income-tax Officer rejected the aforsaid contentions and computed the profits under s. 10 (2) (vii) at Rs.10,07 ,000 and the capital gains under s. J2B at Rs. 10, 23, 210. The matter ultimately went before the High Court which decided in favour of the Revenue.

In the assessee's appeal to this Court it was contended (i) that cl. (vii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 had no application because an auction sale was not a voluntary sale

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 65

All 33 judgments and leading authorities on Section 65 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →