As a result of the pro ceedings before the Investigation Commission, the Commission made a report to the Central Government on the 26th of September, 1952, estimating the amount of escaped income at Rs.
Proceedings were then taken against the petitioner for recovery of the tax assessed by the Income tax Officer and in those proceedings the properties of the petitioner in the District of Belgaum were attached for payment of the dues and one of his properties companyprising of about 12 plots of land was sold by public auction under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
In addition to this, one of the brothers used to run a bus service and dealt in companyton and money lending also.
that the proceedings before the Income tax Investigation Commission after the companying into force of the Constitution were illegal as being in companytravention of articles 14 and 20 3 of the Constitution and that in view of the decision of this Court in Suraj Mal Mohta v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Another supra proceedings under the Taxation on Income Investigation Commission Act, 1947 were discriminatory and that the references made by the Central Government under section 5 1 are number based on a proper classification.
All the brothers owned extensive properties, both agricultural and number agricultural.
The petitioner, along with his brothers, used to carry on the business of toddy and liquor vendors.
In accordance with these orders the Income tax Officer companymenced proceedings against Messrs Jamkhandi Bros. as an association of persons.
On the 20th September, 1954, the present application was preferred under the provisions of article 32 of the Constitution.
It was also alleged A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 545.
Sen, I. N. Shroff and B. P. Singh for the petitioner.
On the 30th November, 1953, various assessment orders were passed by the Income tax Officer assessing the petitioner under the Income tax Act and the Excess Profits Tax Act.
Though prior to the assessment year 1926 27 all the brothers were assessed to income tax as a Hindu undivided family, since then up to the year 1946 they were assessed separately on account of a partition alleged to have been made between them.
In pursuance of this report the Central Government passed an order under section 8 2 of the Taxation on Income Investigation Commission Act directing that the assessment proceedings be taken under the Indian Income tax Act and Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, as well as under the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, against Messrs Jamkhandi Bros. as an association of persons with a view to assess or reassess the income that had escaped assessment according to the report of the Investigation Commission.
The petition arises in these circumstances.
October 21.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
In December, 1946, the Income tax Officer companymenced proceedings against them under section 34 on the ground that the case of partition set up by them was number companyrect and as a matter of fact there had been numberpartition between them and they were carrying on business jointly.
As a result of these proceedings an assessment under section 34 was made on the four brothers jointly, treating them as an association of persons, for the year 1942 43.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, and C. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India G. N. Joshi A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with them for the respondents.
Reference No.
492 of 1954.
Similar assessment proceedings were taken against them in respect of the years 1940 41, 1941 42 and 1943 44.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J. This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights under articles 31 1 and 19 1 f of the Constitution and for the issue of writs in the nature of mandamus and or certiorari and for suitable directions restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners properties in violation of his fundamental rights.
16,79,203 between the year, 1940 41 and 1948 49.
In December, 1947, the Central Government, under the bona fide belief that the petitioners brothers had made huge profits during the war and had evaded tax, made five references to the Income tax Investigation Commission under section 5 1 of the Taxation on Income Investigation Commission Act, 1947.
175 companycerned all the brothers as an association of persons while the other four references related to the brothers individually.
