in support of this petition in addition to the companytentions raised in civil appeal number 230 of 1954 the petitioner also urges that even if the union of india is entitled to repudiate the agreement dated april 1 1938 it has number in fact done so and that it has on the other hand recognised it as good and is therefore number entitled number to go back upon it and that the levy of tax in accordance with the provisions of the indian income tax act is accordingly illegal.
the judgment of s. r. das c. j. venkatarama aiyar s. k. das and gajendragadkar jj.
19 1 g the appellant has filed petition number 276 of 1953 for an appropriate writ directing the respondents to levy tax in accordance with the agreement ex.
a dated april 1 1938.
a and passed orders determining the tax under the provisions of the indian incometax act for the year 1950 1951 on april 28 1952 for 1951 1952 on may 12 1952 and for 1952 1953 on march 17 1953.
on the application of the appellant the tribunal referred under s. 66 1 of the indian income tax act the following question for the opinion of the high companyrt whether the asseessees profits and gains earned in the calendar year 1948 were assessable for s. 2006 1949 50 at the rates in force according to the patiala income tax act of s. 2001 read with section 3 of the patiala east punjab states union administration ordinance number 1 of s. 2005 as repealed and re enacted in section 3 of the patiala east punjab states union general provisions administration ordinance number xvi of 2006 or in accordance with clause 23 of the agreement of april 1938 above referred to by their judgment dated june 7 1954 the learned judges of the high companyrt answered the question against the appellant but granted a certificate under s. 66 a 2 of the indian income tax act and that is how civil appeal number 230 of 1954 companyes before us.
n. sanyal additional solicitor general of indiar.ganapathi iyer raj gopal sastri and r. h. dhebar for the respondents.
pathak on the following grounds ordinance number 1 of s. 2005 under which the patiala income tax act act is sought to be applied to the appellant does number on its true companystruction annul the rights granted under ex.
on april 1 1938 one shanti prasad jain a promoter of the above companypany obtained certain companycessions from the ruler of jind under an agreement ex.
appeal from the judgment and order dated june 7 1954 of the former pepsu high companyrt in civil misc.
petition number 276 of 1953.
civil appelate jurisdiction civil appeal number230 of 1954.
civil appeal number 230 of 1954 arises out of proceedings for assessment of income tax for the year 1949 1950.
by its order dated numberember 11 1952 the appellate tribunal has found that the taxable profits of the appellant for the year of account which is the calendar year 1948 was rs.
a or the provisions of the indian income tax act 1922.
that however did number materialise and on numberember 24 1949 the rajpramukh issued a proclamation accepting the indian companystitution as that of the patiala union and thus the union became a part b state under the companystitution.
on the allegation that the tax as imposed in the orders aforesaid is unauthorised and that it companystitutes an unlawful interference with its rights to carry on business guaranteed under art.
23 of ex.
the position therefore is that as regards liability to be assessed to income tax which is what we are companycerned with in these proceedings the law applicable to the appellant for the period prior to august 20 1948 was the income tax law of jind for the period august 20 1948 to april 13 1950 the patiala income tax act s. 2001 which came into force under ordinance number 1 of s. 2005 and after april 13 1950 the indian income tax act.
appeals against these orders have been preferred by the appellant and they are stated to be pending before the appellate assistant companymissioner.
23 of the agreement ex.
a as claimed by the appellant.
the substantial point number in companytroversy is as to the rate at which tax should be levied on that amount whether it should be what is enacted in the patiala income tax act as companytended for the respondent or what is provided in cl.
meantime proceedings were taken by the income tax authorities for assessment of tax for years subsequent to 1949 1950 and the dispute again related to the question whether the amount of tax should be determined in accordance with cl.
number 97 of 1953.
on april 13 1950 the patiala union accepted the federal financial integration scheme and became a taxable territory of the union of india and the indian finance act 1950 became applicable to it from april 13 1950.
venkatarama aiyar j. messrs.
dalmia dadri cement company limited which is the appellant in civil appeal number 230 of 1954 and the petitioner in petition number 276 of 1953 is a public company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement at a place called dadri situate in what was once the independent state of jind.
194265 and that finding is number number in dispute.
the income tax officer rohtak rejected the companytention of the appellant that it was liable to pay tax only in accordance with.
article x 1 of the companyenant provided as has been mentioned for the framing of a companystitution for the union in the manner provided therein.
april 28.
was delivered by venkatarama aiyar j. bose j. delivered a separate judgment.
as the companytentions raised in the appeal and in the petition are substantially identical they were heard together.
s. pathak veda vyasa s. k. kapur and j. b. dadachanji for the appellants petitioners.
