D.R.MADHAVAKRISHNAIAH vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 209/1953Supreme Court[1954] 1 S.C.R. 53716 December 1953Bench: 5 JudgesAuthor: M. PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, GHULAM HASAN, B. JAGANNADHADAS5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Union Parliament had the power to make laws with retrospective effect concerning the pre-Constitution period, as decided in a previous judgment (Case No. 296 of 1951, Union of India v. Madan Gopal Kabra). Regarding the second issue, the Court ruled that while Article 277 of the Constitution authorizes the continued levy and application of taxes lawfully levied by State governments before the Constitution's commencement, it does not imply that such taxes must continue to be levied, assessed, and collected by the same State authorities. The Court found no provision in Article 277 that precluded Parliament from enacting 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. The Court reasoned that it was a measure of economy and for smooth and efficient management to have a unified system. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to assess the appellant for the period prior to the commencement of the Constitution.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, Bangalore, to assess income-tax and super-tax on income accrued prior to April 1, 1950, in the State of Mysore. The assessee contended that the proviso to Section 13 of the Indian Finance Act, 1950, which empowered the officer, was ultra vires and void. The officer was appointed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and was applying the Mysore income-tax law in force before the Constitution. The High Court of Judicature at Bangalore dismissed the assessee's applications, and the assessee appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The appeals were against the judgment and orders dated April 4, 1953, of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Union Parliament had the power to make a law having retrospective effect with reference to the pre-Constitution period, specifically concerning the proviso to Section 13 of the Indian Finance Act, 1950. (Question of law) 2. Whether Article 277 of the Constitution prohibited the Union Parliament from making a law that authorized officers appointed under the Indian Income-tax Act to levy, assess, and collect income-tax and super-tax under the Mysore law prior to the commencement of the Constitution. (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: (i) On general constitutional principles, the Union Parliament lacked the power to enact laws with retrospective effect concerning the pre-Constitution period. (ii) Article 277 of the Constitution, by necessary implication, prohibited Parliament from enacting a law that grafted the machinery for assessment and collection provided under the Indian Income-tax Act onto the Mysore State law for purposes of assessment under the State law. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions for the revenue were recorded in the provided text, beyond the implicit defense of the proviso to Section 13 of the Indian Finance Act, 1950, and the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 13,Section 3,Section 4,Section 2(14-A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

• 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 thcreof- Constitution of Indian, Art. 277. The assessee challenge<l the juri iction 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 retros- pective 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

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 13

All 783 judgments and leading authorities on Section 13 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →