A numberice was issued under section 13 of the Hyderabad Excess Profits Tax Regulation by the Excess Profits Tax Officer calling upon the appellants to pay the, amount of tax appertaining to these chargeable account , ing periods.
An application made by the appellants under section 48 2 for statement of the case to the High Court was rejected by the Commissioner and the appellants filed a petition to the High Court under section 48 3 to companypel the Commissioner to state the case to the High Court.
180 181 of 1954 F. Ved Vyas, S. K. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, with him for the appellant.
These questions were of companysiderable importance and were referred for decision to the Full Bench of the High Court.
The Full Bench of the High Court delivered their judgment the majority deciding the questions 2 and 3 which were the only questions companysidered determinative of the reference against the appellants.
Four questions were referred by the Commissioner to the High Courts as under Whether the Petitioner Company is a partnership firm or a registered firm ?
This companytention of the appellants was negatived and on the 24th April, 1944, the Excess Profits Tax Officer made an order assessing the income of the appellants for the accounting periods 1351 and 1352 Fasli at Rs.
The appellants throughout worked only as the Agents of the Mills Company and for the Fasli years 1351 and 1352 they received their remuneration under the terms of the Agency agreement.
An order was made by the High,Court on this petition directing the Commissioner to state the case and the statement of the case was submitted by the Commis sioner on the 26th February, 1946.
292 and 312 of 1950.
8,957 and Rs.
Appeals from the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad Ansari, Qamar Hasan and Manohar Pershad JJ.
The appellants appealed to the Judicial Committee.
The appellants were registered as a private limited companypany at Bombay on agreement was entered into between the Mills Company.
An appeal was taken by the appellants to the Deputy Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax who disallowed the same.
Whether the remuneration received from the MILLs is on account of service or is the remuneration for business ?
Whether the principle of personal qualification referred to in section 2, clause 4 , of the Excess Profits Regulation is applicable to the Petitioner Company ?
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
and the appellants appointing the appellants its Agents for a period of 30 years on certain terms and companyditions therein recorded.
The appeals finally came for hearing before the Supreme Court Bench at Hyderabad on the 12th December, 1950, when an order was passed transferring the appeals to this Court at Delhi.
83,768 respectively and assessed the tax accordingly.
Whether under the terms of the agreement the petitioner is an employee of the Mills Company or is carrying on business ?
But before the Judicial Committee heard the appeals there was a merger of the territories of Hyderabad with India.
in Cases Nos.
The Mills Company was registered on the 14th February, 1920, at Hyderabad in the then territories of His Exalted Highness the Nizam.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India Porus Mehta, with him for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. These are two appeals from the judgment and decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad answering certain questions referred at the instance of the appellants by the Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Hyderabad, and adjudging the liability of the appellants for excess profits tax in regard to the amounts recieved by them as remuneration from the Dewan Bahadur Ramgopal Mills Com pany Ltd. as its Agents.
April 1.
The appellants submitted their accounts and companytended that the remuneration received by them from the Mills Company was number taxable on the ground that it is was number income, profits or gains from business and was outside the pale of the Excess Profits Tax Regulation.
