RANJIT SINGH vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P. AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 85/1959Supreme Court[1962] 1 S.C.R. 96614 April 1961Bench: 5 JudgesAuthor: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR, S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH SUPREME COURT REPORTS12 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

In 1948, the Central Government referred cases involving the petitioner, Ranjit Singh, to the Income-tax Investigation Commission. The Commission submitted a report estimating the total tax payable on undisclosed income up to March 31, 1947, at Rs. 6,61,917. The petitioner applied for a settlement, agreeing to pay the tax in installments, with the entire outstanding amount becoming immediately payable upon default. The Central Government accepted these terms on November 21, 1949, under Section 8-A(2) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, and issued a demand notice on December 2, 1949. The petitioner made some payments but defaulted on others, leading to the attachment of his family's properties for recovery. On June 8, 1959, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the demand notice and subsequent recovery proceedings.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the proceedings against the petitioner, including the issuance of the demand notice, were completed before the commencement of the Constitution on January 26, 1950. Therefore, these proceedings could not be challenged under Article 14, as the Constitution is prospective and not retrospective. The Court clarified that the true scope of Section 8-A(2) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, is to enforce the terms of a settlement for recovering escaped income-tax. Regarding the discrimination argument, the Court found that the petitioner belonged to a special class of individuals who had evaded income-tax and entered into a settlement, not the general class of government debtors. The classification under Section 8-A(2) was deemed reasonable, having a just relation to the object of recovering escaped income-tax, and applied equally to all persons similarly situated within that class. Consequently, the recovery procedure was not considered discriminatory under Article 14. The Court distinguished the case from precedents where discriminatory procedures were applied after the Constitution's commencement. The petition was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner, culminating in the demand notice dated December 2, 1949, and subsequent recovery actions, can be challenged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as violative of the fundamental right to equal protection of the laws, given that these proceedings commenced before the Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the amount agreed to be paid was a debt arising from a contract (the settlement). He contended that he was being treated differently from other government debtors who owed money under contractual liabilities, as the recovery procedure under Section 8-A(2) was more drastic, allowing for penalties under Section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. This, he argued, constituted discriminatory procedure continued after the Constitution's commencement. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the proceedings were completed before the Constitution's commencement and thus could not be challenged under Article 14 as the Constitution is prospective. They also contended that the petitioner belonged to a special class of income-tax evaders, not the general class of government debtors, and that the procedure under Section 8-A(2) was a reasonable classification related to the object of recovering escaped income-tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 8-A,Section 46,Section 8,Section 44

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] I96r RANJIT SINGH April r4. V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P. AND OTHERS. (S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)

Income Tax-Evasion of Taxation-Case referred lo Investiga- tion Commission-Settlement of Case-Notice of demand-Com- mencement of Constitution-Reco11ery of tax thereafter-Legality- Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission.) Act, 1947 (30 of 1947), ss. 8, 8-A-Constitution of lndia, Art. r4. In 1948 the Central Government referred a number of cases in which the petitioner was concerned, to the Income-tax Inves- tigation Commission set up under the relevant provisions of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947· After the Commissi~n had submitted the report under s. 8-A(l} of the Act, in which the total tax payable on the undisclosed income upto March 31, 1947, was estimated, the petitioner applied for a settlement of his case by offering to pay the amount of tax in instalments and by agreeing to pay the whole amount imme- diately in case of default in payment of any of the instalments in time. The Central Government accepted the terms suggested

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 46

All 37 judgments and leading authorities on Section 46 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →