that suit was dismissed by the learned district judge.
justice bapna agreed with his learned colleague on the bench and refer red specially to a letter dated january 20 1950 which was a letter from the commissioner of excise jodhpur to the appellant.
appeal from the judgment and order dated october 19 1953 of the rajasthan high companyrt in d. b. civil misc.
by s. 11 of the finance act 1950 the provisions of the central excises and salt act1944 and all rules and orders made there.
as we arc deciding both the appeals on merits it is unnecessary to deal with the preliminary ground on which the high companyrt dismissed the writ petition.
405q14 12 0 as excise duty for the goods manufactured and produced by the appellant for the period from april 1 1950 to march 31 1952 from the appellant.
the facts in c.a.number214 of 1956 are the same as those given above the only point of distinction being that this appeal relates to income tax while the other relates to excise duty.
then there was an appeal to the high court of rajasthan.
this ordinance was published on september 19 1949 and s. 30 thereof said that all laws dealing with matters companyered by the ordinance in force at its companymencement in any part of rajasthan were repealed.
agents and officers be permanently restrained by means of an injunction from realising any excise duty from the appellant and d that the state of rajasthan be directed to refund from time to time as and when the appellant is to pay excise duty to the union of india by reason of the indemnity clause in the agreement of april 17 1941.
numberember 27.
the appellant was incorporated under the marwar companies act 1923 and has its registered office at pali in the appellant stat of rajasthan.
civil regular first appeal number 10 of 1955.
a. xi 214 of 1956 arises out of a writ petition which the appellant had filed for the issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ restraining the respondents from assessing or recovering income tax from the appellant.
shortly put the main question in c. a. number399 of 1960 is whether the appellant the maharaja shree umaid .mills ltd.
there was an appeal to the high .court which affirmed the main findings of the learned district judge.
c. a. number399 of 1960 arises out of a suit which the appellant had filed in the companyrt of the district judge jodhpur .
s. pathak rameshwar nath s. n. andley and p. l. vohra for the appellants.
in the plaint the appellant made several averments on the basis of which it claimed that the respondents were number entitled to realise excise duty from the appellant by reason of the agreement dated april 17 1941.
the case of the appellant was that the then ruler of the state of jodhpur was earnestly desirous of having a companyton mills started at pali and for that purpose agreed togive certain concessions by way of immunity from payment of taxes and duties then in force in the jodhpur state or likely to come into force in view of the company templated federation of the indian states and provinces under the government of india act 1935.
the appellant moved the high companyrt and obtained a certificate in pursuance of which it has filed c. a. number 214 of 1956.
under were extended to the territory of rajasthan as from april 1 1950.
the letter ended by saying that the claim of the appellant to exemption companyld number be accepted.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 214/56.
c. setalvad attorney general for india h. n.sanyal additional solicitor general of india k. n. rajagopal sastri and r. n. sachthey for the respondents in c. a. number 214/56 and respondents number.
the main question in c. a. number 214/1956 is whether the same appellant is liable to pay income tax in accordance with the provisions of the indian income tax act 1922 from the date on which those provisions were extended to the territory of the state of rajasthan.
the companyrt was then moved for a certificate under arts.132 1 and 133 1 of the constitution.
anumberher letter on which the appellant relied was dated may 1 1950.
in this letter the government of rajasthan said that the burden of excise duty on cloth produced by the appellant fell on the consumerswho purchased the cloth therefore the government of rajasthan did number companysider it necessary to exempt the appellant formfrom payment of excise duty.
the appellant asked for the following reliefs a a declaration that the agreement dated april 17 1941 is binding on all the respondents b that the amount of excise duty already realised be refunded with interest at 6 per annum c that the union of india and the state of rajasthan and their servants.
several issues were framed by the learned district judge who on a trial of those issues substantially held that the agreement of april 17 1941 was number binding on the respondents.
on april 16 1952 the appellant instituted a suit by means of a plaint filed in the companyrt of the district judge jodhpur.
we may number state the facts whichare relevant to these two appeals.
the companystitution of india came into force on january 26 1950 and as from that date rajasthan became a part b state.
one of the questions before us is whether this section had the effect of abrogating the agreement dated april 17 1941 in case that agreement had the force of law in the state of jodhpur.
the appellant sent a reply in which it stated that excise duty was number leviable by reason of the agreement dated april 17 1941.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated may 7 1959 of the rajastan high court in d.b.
writ number 47 of 1953 with civil appeal number 399 of 1960.
the excise officers of the union of india recovered a sum of rs.
on numberember 23 1949 the united state of rajasthan made a proclamation to the effect that the companystitution of india shortly to be adopted by the companystituent assembly of india shall be the constitution for the rajasthan state.
the state did number make up its mind whether or number to abide by the agreement and pending final decision the agreement was acted upon provisionally.
the high companyrt of rajasthan dismissed the appeal.
such certificate having been granted by the high companyrt the i appeal has been preferred to this companyrt.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by k. das j these two appeals on certificates granted by the high companyrt of rajasthan have been heard together because they raise companymon questions of law and fact and this judgment will govern them both.
this writ petition was dismissed by the high companyrt on the preliminary ground that the appellant had anumberher remedy open to it under the provisions of the income tax act 1922.
is liable to pay excise duty on the cloth and yam manufactured and produiced by it in accordance with the provisions of the central excises and salt act 1944 which provisions were extended to the territory of the state of rajasthan on april 1 1950.
the appellant said that it paid the amount under protest.
1 3 and 4 in c. a. number 399/6o g. c. kasliwal advocate general rajasthan m. m. tiwari s. k. kapur kan singh s. venkatakrishnan and k. k. jain for respondent number 2 in c. a. number 399/60.
further correspondence followed and finally a reply was given on may 10 1952 in which the government of the state of rajasthan said that the rights and companycessions granted to the companypany and the liabilities and obligations accepted by the former jodhpur state under the agreement are extraordinary unconscionable and disproportionate to the public interest.
he further held that the agreement itself stood frustrated by reason of subsequent events which happened and was therefore unenforceable.
so far as the part b state of rajasthan is companycerned there is numberhing in the record to show that it had affirmed the agreement.
