5000,000 and that, he be given credit for a sum of Rs, 32,034 4.6 already paid by him, The Central Government accepted this proposal and the claim for evaded income tax was thus finally settled by mutual agreement.
4,50,000 from him.
In the year 1948 the Central Government, acting under section 5 1 of the Taxation on Income Investigation Commission Act, 1947, referred his case to the Investigation Commission for investigation and report, in respect of the profits made by him during the period companymencing with 1st of January, 1939, and ending on 31st of December, 1947.
In June, 1954, after the decision by this Court of Suraj Mal Mohta v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Another 1 , the petitioner preferred this petition under the provisions of article 32 of the Constitution alleging that he had been advised that the entire proceedings under the Act which had resulted in the imposition upon him of a liability of Rs.
It is alleged that during the war years he made huge profits but evaded payment of tax.
14,00,000 towards discharge of the liability voluntarily agreed to by him on account of the tax evaded.
18,44,949 and in the payment already made of an aggregate amount of Rs.
By one of the terms of the settlement the petitioner undertook number to transfer, mortgage, charge or alienate or encumber in any manner whatsoever any of his movable or immovable properties, barring stock intrade of the business, except with the permission of the Commissioner of Income tax and except for the purpose of the payment of the tax due under the settlement.
13,99,175 were wholly illegal, ultra vires, void and unconstitutional and that the Income tax authorities were number legally entitled to recover the amount of Rs.
5,00,0000 On or before 25 3 1954 Rs.
27,25,363 and the tax payable by him amounted to Rs.
The Commission, after investigation, reported on the 28th of February, 1951, that the income of the petitioner companycealed and withheld from taxation was in the sum of Rs.
5,00,000 On or before 25 3 1953 Rs.
In the grounds of the petition it was stated that sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Act XXX of 1947 were invalid and ultra vires in so far as they companytravene the provisions of articles 14, 19 1 f and 31 of the Constitution and that under the Act A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 545.
The assessee, subsequently, asked for more time to pay these instalments and this was, also granted from time to time.
315 of 1954.
4,50,000 still remains due and is payable in instalments up to the 25th of March, 1955.
3,44,949 On or before 25 3 1952 Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J. The petitioner in this matter is a resident of Akola in the State of Madhya Pradesh and carries on business in various lines, i.e., oil mills, banking, money lending, etc.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, and C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India G. N. Joshi, Porusa Mehta and P. G. Gokle, with them for the respondents.
During the pendency of the investigation the peti tioner applied for settlement under the provisions of section 8 A of Act XXX of 1947.
J. Umrigar, Narain Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain for the petitioner.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
18,44,949 as under On or before 25 6 1951 Rs.
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Commencing from 16th of July, 1951, ,and till the 10th April, 1954.
18,44,949.
A sum of Rs.
This application was forwarded along with the report by the Commission to the Central Government.
the petitioner paid a total sum of about Rs.
In the settlement application the applicant proposed that he was prepared to pay the sum of RE.
October 2 1.
