In the meantime, the vessel had changed hands a second time, passing first from the ownership of the Newland Steamship Co. Ltd. to that of Pan Norse Steamship Co. S.A. of Panama, and Next to the ownership of Messrs. Wallem Co. Ltd. It appears that the newest owners, Wallem Co. Ltd., while repudiating liability to pay any Indian income tax, nevertheless, offered as a measure of companypromise to pay a sum of Rs.
69,768 were companystructively received in India by the number resident owner of the above mentioned vessel during 1954 55 and 1955 56 respectively.
As this has number been done, you have rendered yourself liable for laymen of such taxes under section 18 7 of the Income tax Act, 1922.
The Income tax Officer did number agree to accept that payment, number did he modify the demand he had made of the appellant companypany.
The appellant did number admit its liability to make the payment demanded and some discussion with the Income tax Officer appears to have followed.
5,000 as representing their proportionate share of the tax which was said to be due from the owners.
Assuming the amounts were number loans, but part payments of the hire, they were still number chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Indian Income tax Act, because the part payments had number been received by the owners bin India.
Thereafter, on May 18,1956, the appellant moved this companyrt under article 226 of the Constitutions for a rule on the Income tax Officer, directing him to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari should number be issued, companymanding him to certify and return to this companyrt the records relating to the proceedings and for a peremptory order quashing the proceedings, if the Income tax Officer made numberanswer or made an insufficient or false answer.
In the end, the appellant companypany paid the tax demanded by three chilliness on May 18,1956.
A rule was issued on that application, but at the final hearing it was discharged by Sinha, J. It is against the order discharging the rule that the present appeal is directed.
According to the judgment of Sinha, J., the appellants case before him was put in the following way The amounts paid on account of disbursements had been paid under the provisions of clause 14 of the charter party and having been so paid, they companystituted loans advanced to the owners and number part payments of the hire.
