Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram

1 SCC 421Reported decision1975#3980 most cited

What is Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram authority for?

The concept of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution has expanded beyond a mere cohesive machinery of authority to include service corporations acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the State, even when engaged in commercial activities.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram · Article 12 · State · other authority · instrumentality of State · agency of State · welfare state · commercial activities · service corporation

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 244ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 40A(9)Section 41(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)mliput to usesection 10(23c)section 2(15)section 40a(3)

Judgments citing Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram

Asst CIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…cepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect……………” 24. Another important judgment dealing with section 14A disallowance which merits consideration is Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 1 SCC 421. Here the assessee had access to adequate interest free funds to make investments and the issue pertained to disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn dividend income, which was not forming part of total income of the Assessee. Justice Ranjan Gogoi writing the opinion on behalf of the Division Bench observed that for disallowance of expenditure…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…cepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect……………” 24. Another important judgment dealing with section 14A disallowance which merits consideration is Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 1 SCC 421. Here the assessee had access to adequate interest free funds to make investments and the issue pertained to disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn dividend income, which was not forming part of total income of the Assessee. Justice Ranjan Gogoi writing the opinion on behalf of the Division Bench observed that for disallowance of expenditure…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…pting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect.…………." 24. Another important judgment dealing with section 14A disallowance which merits consideration is Godrej & Boyce Mfgr. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 1 SCC 421. Here the assessee had access to adequate interest free funds to make investments and the issue pertained to disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn dividend income, which was not forming part of total income of the Assessee. Justice Ranjan Gogoi writing the opinion on behalf of the Division Bench observed that for disallowance of expenditure…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…g the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect.…………." 24. Another important judgment dealing with section 14A disallowance which merits consideration is Godrej & Boyce Mfgr. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 1 SCC 421. Here the assessee had access to adequate interest free funds to make investments and the issue pertained to disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn dividend income, which was not forming part of total income of the Assessee. Justice Ranjan Gogoi writing the opinion on behalf of the Division Bench observed that for disallowance of expend…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Delhi vs. M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte Ltd

ITA/564/2023HC Delhi03 Oct 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

…. So long as staff regulations are not framed under Section 58(1), it is open to the Central Board to issue administrative circulars regulating the service conditions of the staff, in the exercise of power conferred by Section 7(2) of the Act. In T. 83 (1975) 1 SCC 421 Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHAR AN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:22.04.2024 22:29 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:22.04.2024 22:30 Signature Not Verified WP(C) 12983/2022 & other batch matters Page 148 of 177 Cajee v. U. Jormanik Siem84 a District Council was constituted under the Sixth Schedule to the Constituti…

M/s Durga Granites vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1

ITTA/30/2023HC Telangana04 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

…aking power by an Act does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto. 74. In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421, the Constitution Bench has held that : (SCC p. 433, para 18) 2025:JHHC:29619-DB 169 “18. … These statutory bodies cannot use the power to make rules and regulations to enlarge the powers beyond the scope intended by the Legislature. Rules and regulations made by reason of the specific power conferred by the statute to make rules and…

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 444/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. B V Vidyulatha &
Section 17(2)Section 18Section 18ASection 21Section 3(8)(b)Section 7A

…t Employee. 14. The Learned CIT (A) has not considered the essence of the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:  Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Mohan Lal ((1967) 3 SCR 377),  Sukhdev Singh & Ors Vs. Bhagath Ram Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr (1975) 1 SCC 421)  Union of India Vs. R.C. Jain & Ors(1981) 2 SCC 308) 15. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in completely accepting the findings of the AO enumerated in his Order passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, without paying proper attention to the reply statement made by the Appellant EPFO and thus has erroneously held that:  though…

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 443/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. B V Vidyulatha &
Section 17(2)Section 18Section 18ASection 21Section 3(8)(b)Section 7A

…t Employee. 14. The Learned CIT (A) has not considered the essence of the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:  Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Mohan Lal ((1967) 3 SCR 377),  Sukhdev Singh & Ors Vs. Bhagath Ram Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr (1975) 1 SCC 421)  Union of India Vs. R.C. Jain & Ors(1981) 2 SCC 308) 15. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in completely accepting the findings of the AO enumerated in his Order passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, without paying proper attention to the reply statement made by the Appellant EPFO and thus has erroneously held that:  though…

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 442/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. B V Vidyulatha &
Section 17(2)Section 18Section 18ASection 21Section 3(8)(b)Section 7A

…t Employee. 14. The Learned CIT (A) has not considered the essence of the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:  Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Mohan Lal ((1967) 3 SCR 377),  Sukhdev Singh & Ors Vs. Bhagath Ram Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr (1975) 1 SCC 421)  Union of India Vs. R.C. Jain & Ors(1981) 2 SCC 308) 15. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in completely accepting the findings of the AO enumerated in his Order passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, without paying proper attention to the reply statement made by the Appellant EPFO and thus has erroneously held that:  though…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1116/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex Deputy Commissioner of KH Road Income-tax Vs. Shanti Nagar Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACB4881D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. CIT Special Range-1 Bangalore Metro Rail Bangalore Vs. Corporation Ltd. Bangalore 560 027 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA N…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex Deputy Commissioner of KH Road Income-tax Vs. Shanti Nagar Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACB4881D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. CIT Special Range-1 Bangalore Metro Rail Bangalore Vs. Corporation Ltd. Bangalore 560 027 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA N…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1114/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex Deputy Commissioner of KH Road Income-tax Vs. Shanti Nagar Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACB4881D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. CIT Special Range-1 Bangalore Metro Rail Bangalore Vs. Corporation Ltd. Bangalore 560 027 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA N…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex Deputy Commissioner of KH Road Income-tax Vs. Shanti Nagar Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACB4881D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. CIT Special Range-1 Bangalore Metro Rail Bangalore Vs. Corporation Ltd. Bangalore 560 027 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA N…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex Deputy Commissioner of KH Road Income-tax Vs. Shanti Nagar Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACB4881D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. CIT Special Range-1 Bangalore Metro Rail Bangalore Vs. Corporation Ltd. Bangalore 560 027 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA N…

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1048/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, BMTC Complex Deputy Commissioner of KH Road Income-tax Vs. Shanti Nagar Circle-1(1)(2) Bangalore 560 027 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACB4881D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. CIT Special Range-1 Bangalore Metro Rail Bangalore Vs. Corporation Ltd. Bangalore 560 027 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA N…

M/S. Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…s. (d) Since the State is empowered under the Articles 19(1)(g) and 298 to carry on any trade or business, it was held that Rajasthan State Electricity Board was ‘other authority’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram [1975] 1 SCC 421: (a) The concept of State had undergone drastic change. It cannot be conceived of simply as cohesive machinery wielding the thunderbolt of authority. (b) The State is a service corporation. It acts only through instrumentalities or agencies of natural and juridical person. (c) There is distinction between State action and private action. (d) There…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kedra, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…s. (d) Since the State is empowered under the Articles 19(1)(g) and 298 to carry on any trade or business, it was held that Rajasthan State Electricity Board was ‘other authority’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram [1975] 1 SCC 421: (a) The concept of State had undergone drastic change. It cannot be conceived of simply as cohesive machinery wielding the thunderbolt of authority. (b) The State is a service corporation. It acts only through instrumentalities or agencies of natural and juridical person. (c) There is distinction between State action and private action. (d) There…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…s. (d) Since the State is empowered under the Articles 19(1)(g) and 298 to carry on any trade or business, it was held that Rajasthan State Electricity Board was ‘other authority’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram [1975] 1 SCC 421: (a) The concept of State had undergone drastic change. It cannot be conceived of simply as cohesive machinery wielding the thunderbolt of authority. (b) The State is a service corporation. It acts only through instrumentalities or agencies of natural and juridical person. (c) There is distinction between State action and private action. (d) There…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…s. (d) Since the State is empowered under the Articles 19(1)(g) and 298 to carry on any trade or business, it was held that Rajasthan State Electricity Board was ‘other authority’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram [1975] 1 SCC 421: (a) The concept of State had undergone drastic change. It cannot be conceived of simply as cohesive machinery wielding the thunderbolt of authority. (b) The State is a service corporation. It acts only through instrumentalities or agencies of natural and juridical person. (c) There is distinction between State action and private action. (d) There…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…s. (d) Since the State is empowered under the Articles 19(1)(g) and 298 to carry on any trade or business, it was held that Rajasthan State Electricity Board was ‘other authority’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram [1975] 1 SCC 421: (a) The concept of State had undergone drastic change. It cannot be conceived of simply as cohesive machinery wielding the thunderbolt of authority. (b) The State is a service corporation. It acts only through instrumentalities or agencies of natural and juridical person. (c) There is distinction between State action and private action. (d) There…

Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1 SCC 421) — Cited in 29 Judgments | BharatTax