R.K. Garg v. Union of India

133 ITR 239Reported decision1982#4430 most cited

What is R.K. Garg v. Union of India authority for?

Laws relating to economic activities are viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights, allowing the legislature "some play in the joints" to deal with complex problems without rigid formulas.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

R.K. Garg v. Union of India · 1982 · economic activities · latitude · legislature · play in the joints · complex problems

Also reported as

7 Taxmann 534 SCC 675

Sections most often in play

Section 10ASection 10BSection 80HHCSection 80IBSection 56Section 80HHSection 80IASection 10AA

Issues it is cited on

purposive interpretationexport oriented unitsection 80hsection 80hhsection 10aacomputer softwaresection 10bsection 10asection 80hhceligible businesssection 80acommercial expediency

Judgments citing R.K. Garg v. Union of India

Subhash Chand Nawal (HUF), Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1037/JPR/2017[2014-15 (26Q-Q1, 2, 3, 4TH)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018
For Appellant: None (One set W.S. filed)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 192Section 200(3)Section 206CSection 234ESection 249(2)Section 5

…r wider meaning, than what appears on the face of it. It is only when all efforts to do so fail should the court declare a statute to be unconstitutional. 78. In para 8 of the Constitution Bench decision in R.K. Garg case [R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 30] it was observed (as quoted above) that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Thus, the Constitution Bench decision in R.K. Garg case [(1981) 4 SCC 675 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 30] is an authority for the propositio…

Cantt Board, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 660/JPR/2017[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14 FORM 24Q-Q3 )]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2017
For Appellant: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONSFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Mallik (Addl.CIT)
Section 249(2)Section 282Section 282(2)Section 5Section 66A

…r wider meaning, than what appears on the face of it. It is only when all efforts to do so fail should the court declare a statute to be unconstitutional. 78. In para 8 of the Constitution Bench decision in R.K. Garg case [R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 30] it was observed (as quoted above) that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Thus, the Constitution Bench decision in R.K. Garg case [(1981) 4 SCC 675 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 30] is an authority for the propositio…

Commnr., Central Excise, Madras vs. M/S. Adison & Co. Ltd

C.A. No.-007906-007906 - 2002Supreme Court29 Aug 2016

Bench: Us Because Of An Order Dated 16.07.2008, By Which There Was A Reference To A Larger Bench In View Of The Importance Of The Questions Involved. 2. Civil Appeal No. 7906 Of 2002 Arises From The Judgment Dated 23.11.2000 Passed By The Madras High Court In R.C. No. 01 Of 1999. Civil Appeal No. 14689 Of 2015 Was Filed By The Revenue Against The Judgment Dated 26.11.2014 In Central Excise Appeal No. 21 Of 2009. Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18426 Of 2015, 18423 Of 2015, 18425 Of 2015, 23722 Of 2015, 12282 Of 2016, 16142 Of 2016 & 16141 Of 2016 Are Filed Against The Judgment Of The Andhra Pradesh High Court In Central Excise Appeal Nos. 21 Of 2005, 9 Of 2005, 51 Of 2004, 10 Of 2005, 44 Of 2004, 38 Of 2004 & 18 Of 2005 Respectively. 3. Civil Appeal No. 8488 Of 2009 Is Filed Against The Judgment Dated 20.08.2008 Passed By The Bombay High 2

Section 11Section 4

…(Amendment) Act are a “device” or a “ruse” to retain the taxes collected illegally and to invalidate them on that ground — assuming that such an argument is permissible in the case of a taxing enactment made by Parliament. (See R.K. Garg [(1981) 4 SCC 675 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 30 : AIR 1981 SC 2138] and other decisions cited in paras 87 and 88.)” 21. That a consumer can make an application for refund is clear from paras 98 and 99 of the judgment of this Court in Mafatlal Industries (supra). We are bound by the said findings of a Larger Bench of this Court. The word ‘buyer’ in Clause (e) to prov…

Commnr., Central Excise, Madras vs. M/S. Adison & Co. Ltd

C.A. No.-007906-007906 - 2002Supreme Court29 Aug 2016

Bench: Us Because Of An Order Dated 16.07.2008, By Which There Was A Reference To A Larger Bench In View Of The Importance Of The Questions Involved. 2. Civil Appeal No. 7906 Of 2002 Arises From The Judgment Dated 23.11.2000 Passed By The Madras High Court In R.C. No. 01 Of 1999. Civil Appeal No. 14689 Of 2015 Was Filed By The Revenue Against The Judgment Dated 26.11.2014 In Central Excise Appeal No. 21 Of 2009. Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18426 Of 2015, 18423 Of 2015, 18425 Of 2015, 23722 Of 2015, 12282 Of 2016, 16142 Of 2016 & 16141 Of 2016 Are Filed Against The Judgment Of The Andhra Pradesh High Court In Central Excise Appeal Nos. 21 Of 2005, 9 Of 2005, 51 Of 2004, 10 Of 2005, 44 Of 2004, 38 Of 2004 & 18 Of 2005 Respectively. 3. Civil Appeal No. 8488 Of 2009 Is Filed Against The Judgment Dated 20.08.2008 Passed By The Bombay High 2

Section 11Section 4

…(Amendment) Act are a “device” or a “ruse” to retain the taxes collected illegally and to invalidate them on that ground — assuming that such an argument is permissible in the case of a taxing enactment made by Parliament. (See R.K. Garg [(1981) 4 SCC 675 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 30 : AIR 1981 SC 2138] and other decisions cited in paras 87 and 88.)” 21. That a consumer can make an application for refund is clear from paras 98 and 99 of the judgment of this Court in Mafatlal Industries (supra). We are bound by the said findings of a Larger Bench of this Court. The word ‘buyer’ in Clause (e) to prov…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) vs. Late Shri Sudhir Sareen

ITA/284/2015HC Delhi06 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 375

…question concerning an economic policy or economic theory, I would easily defer to the wisdom of the Executive of the day and/or the Legislature as it is essentially experimental and requires a "play in the joints". [See R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675.] As alluded to above, the Doctrine of Judicial Self-Restraint is not applicable in cases which involve the determination of controversies that involve alleged infractions of fundamental rights by the State, in the context of violation of civil rights/human rights. Side-stepping such issues would be akin to the court seeking "an alibi" for ref…

M/S. Southern Technologies Ltd vs. Joint Commnr. of Income Tax, Coimbatore

C.A. No.-001337-001337 - 2003Supreme Court11 Jan 2010
Section 145Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 37(1)

…principle of “reasonable justification”. Before concluding, we may cite the following judgments of this Court in the context of the constitutional validity of Sections 36(1)(viia) and 43D of the IT Act. In the case of R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981) 4 SCC 675 this Court held that every legislation, particularly in economic matters, is essentially empiric and it is based on experimentation. There may be possibilities of abuse but on that account alone it cannot be struck down as invalid. These can be set right by the legislature by passing amendments. The Court must, therefore, ad…