Each one of them filed a separate petition challenging the said orders of transfer by the Commissioner of Income tax and the proceedings entertained by the Income tax Office r, Special Circle, Amritsar, against them on the score of the unconstitutionality of s. 5 7A of the Act.
Petitions NOs.
The principal place of business is at Kalimpong, in the district of Darjeeling, though there is also a branch at Calcutta.
These, however, are number material for our purposes, the only order challenged being the order of the Commissioner of Income tax Central, Calcutta.
97, 97A, 44, 86 to 88, 111, 112, 85, 158, 211 to 251 and 225 to 229 of 1956.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights C. Chatterji A. K. Sen, B. P. Maheshwari and Tarachan Brijmohan Lal, for the petitioners in Petitions Nos.
The petitioner in Petition No.
There were further orders dated December 15, 1947, and sometime in September, 1948, transferring the cases of the petitioner from the Income tax Officer, Central Circle IV, Calcutta, to the Income tax Officer, Central Circle 1, Calcutta, and back from him to the Income tax Officer, Central Circle,IV Calcutta.
It may be numbered, however that these orders were all prior to the Constitution and having been made on July 27, 1946, as aforesaid were followed up by companypleted assessment proceedings in respect of the said respective years and also certificate proceedings under S. 46 2 of the Act.
On December 21, 1953, however, the Commissioner of Income tax Hyderabad, issued a numberification under S. 5 7 ordering that the case of the petitioner should be transferred from the Additional income tax Officer, Raichur, to the Income tax Officer, Special Circle, Hyderabad.
211 to 215 of 1956 These petitions may be described as the Sriram Jhabarmull group.
His case also whichprior to the order companyplained against, was being entertained by the Income tax Officer, F Ward, Amritsar, was transferred on some date in 1954 by an order of the Commissioner of Income tax under s. 5 7A of the Act to the Income tax Officer, Special Circle, Amritsar.
1 in Petition No.
It is a business, inter alia, of import and export of piece goods as companymission agents, and dealers in raw wool and other materials.
The father and the three sons were the directors in the Hindustan Embroidery Mills Private Ltd., petitioner No.
2 to the Income tax Officer Central Circle VI,Delhi, and on July 12, 1955, it similarly transferred the cases of petitioner No.
87/56 is Dr. Sarmukh Singh, son of S. Narain Singh.
These are the orders which are companyplained against as unconstitutional and void invalidating the proceedings which were companytinued and subsequently instituted by the Income tax Officer, Central Circle IV, Calcutta, against the petitioner on the score of the unconstitutionality of s. 5 7A of the Act.
Though separately filed, the petitioner in each of them is the same individuals Nandram Agarwalla, who is the sole proprietor Of a business which he carries on under the name and style of I Sriram Jhabarmull.
These three are brothers and the petitioner in Petition No.
All these petitioners were, prior to the orders of transfer made by the Commissioner of Income tax under s. 5 7A of the Act, being assessed by the Income tax Officer, A Ward, Amritsar, but their cases were transferred on or about June 29, 1953, from the Income tax Officer, A Ward, Amritsar, to the Income tax Officer, Special Circle, Amritsar.
The petitioner in Petition No.
2 and 3 in Petitions Nos.211 to 215 of 1956 .
petitions Nos.
Purshottam Tirukumdas and 0.
Petitions Nos.
Before October 20, 1953, they were being assessed by the Income tax Officer,, Hoshiarpur, but on that date their case was transferred under s. 5 7A of the Act by the Commissioner of Income tax to the Income tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala.
Income tax was first imposed in the Hyderabad State in 1946 by a special Act of the Legislature and the petitioner was assessed under the Hyderabad Income tax Act by the Additional Income tax Officer, Raichur, for the assessment years 1948 49 and 1949 As from April 1, 195o, the Indian Income tax Act was applied to Hyderabad but the Additional Income tax Officer, Raichur, companytinued to assess the petitioner.
Assessments for the said years were made on March 21, 1955, and on April 24, 1955, the petitioner made an application under s. 27 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the year 1950 51 as on default under s. 23 4 of the Act.
44/56 is a member of the Hindu undivided family carrying on business in the name and style.
On June 8, 1946, there was a further transfer assigning the cases to the Income tax Officer, Central Circle 1, Calcutta, and on July 27, 1946, orders were passed by the Commissioner of Income tax Central, Calcutta, under s. 5 7A transferring the cases of the petitioner to the Income tax Officer, Central Circle IV, Calcutta.
for the petitioners in Petitions Nos.
Sen and P. K. Ghose, for the State of West Bengal Respondents Nos.
111/56, which is located at Chheharta near Amritsar.
On June 29, 1955, the Central Board of Revenue transferred his case to the Income tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala,, and the said officer companytinued the proceedings in the transferred case and also instituted further proceedings against the petitioner and assessed him under s. 23 4 of the Act for the assessment years 1946 47 and 1947 48.
Shri A. L. Sud, the petitioner in Petition No.
97 97 A of 1956 The petitioners are M s. pannalal Binjrai, Oilmill owners, merchants and companymission agents, carrying on business at Sahibganj in the district of Santhal Pargans, having their branch at 94 Lower Chitpur Road, Culcutta, petitioner No.
1, and R. B. Jamuna Das Chowdhury, resident of the same place and erstwhile karta of the Hindu undivided family, which carried on business in the name and style of M S. Pannalal Binjr petetioner No.
petitions Nos.
225 to 229 of 1956.
On September 28, 1954, the Central Board of Revenue made an order transferring their cases to the Income.tax Officer, Central Circle XI, Calcutta.
Petitions Nos.
The facts which led to the filing of the petitions nay be shortly stated.
JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
Prior to June 29, 1959, he had been assessed to income tax by the Income tax Officer, Special Survey Circle VII, Calcutta.
97 and 97A of 1956.
I to the same officer.
88/56 is the father, S. Narain Singh, son of S. Basdev Singh.
44 and 85 of 1956 The petitioner in Petition No.44/56 is Shrii A. L. sud, the sole proprietor of 14/B. Amritlal Sud Construction who orginally belonged to Hoshiarpur district in the State of Punjab but has since 1948 been residing and carrying on business in Calcutta.
211 to 215 of 1956.
158 of 1956.
The petitioner in each of them is the same individual, one Kalloor Siddannal who resides and carries on business in Raichur in the State of Hyderabad as companymission agent and distributor of agricultural products.
of M s bhagwan Das Sud Sons and the cases of both these petitionrs were transferred to the Income tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, as above, by the said respective orders.
Prior to the orders of the Commissioner of Income tax under s. 5 7A of the Act companyplained against, the petitioner was being assessed by the Income tax Officer, Jalpaiguri, Darjeeling.
The cases in respect of the assessment years 1950 51, 1951 52 and 1952 53 were pending before that officer and proceedings were taken in companynection with the assessment for those years.
These petitions companycern the assessment of the petitioner to income tax for the respective years 1944 45, 1945 46, 1946 47, 1947 48 and 1948 49.
The petitioner in Petition No.
P. Lal, for the petitioners in Petitions Nos.
Bhagirth Das and M. L. Kapur, for the petitioner in petition No.
December 21.
The said officer companytinued the said case and reopened the assessment for the years 1944 45 to 1050 51 and companypleted the assessment for the assessment, years 1947 48, 1950 51 and 1951 52.
85 of 1956.
They companycern the assessment for the respective assessment years 1950 5l, 1951 52, 1952 53, 1953 54 and 1954 55.
86/56 is Sardar Gurdial Singh, son of S. Narain Singh.
158/56 is one Shri Ram Saran Das Kapur, the head and karta of the Hindu undivided family carrying on business outside Ghee Mandi Gate, Amritsar.
The petitioner in Petition No.
86, 87, 88, 111, 112 and 158 of 1956 These petitions may be companypendiously described as the Amritsar group.
The latter officer companytinued the assessment proceedings and issued numberices under s. 22 .4 of the Act on July 1, 1954, November 2, 1954, November 30,1954, December 19, 1954, and March 11, 1955, in respect of the said years of assessment.
Curiously enough, the petitioner challenged both the orders one dated December 21, 1953, and the other made sometime in May, 1955, under s. 5 7A of the Act and the proceedings companytinued and instituted by the respective officers thereunder as unconstitutional and void on the ground that s. 5 7A was ultra vires the Constitution even though ultimately he was being assessed by the main Income tax Officer, Raichur, under the latter order.
ORIGINAL.
These cases were companytinued by the latter officer and numberices under a. 34 of the Act were also issued by him against them for the assessment years 1947 48 to 1951 52.
Before September 28, 1954, they, being assessed by the Income tax officer, Special Circle, Patna.
Petition No.
On March 5, 1946, the cases of the petitioner were transferred from the Income tax Officer, Jalpaiguri, Darjeeling, to the Income tax Officer, Central Circle 1, Calcutta, and a companyple of months thereafter they were again transferred to the Income tax Officer, Central Circle IV, Calcutta.
225 to 229 of 1956 These Petitions may be classed as the Raichur group.
It appears, however, that shortly before May 19, 1955, the Commissioner of Income tax, Hyderabad, made another order under s. 5 7A and s. 64 5 b of the Act transferring all the cases of the petitioner to the main Income tax Officer, Raichur.
C. Isaacs and K. R. Chaudhuri.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, G. N. Joshi, Porpus Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents Union, of India, the Central Board of Revenue and various Income tax Officers in all petitions.
dated July 27, 1946, which was passed under s. 5 7A of the Act.
86 to 88, Ill and 112 of 1956.
C. Chatterji and V. S. Sawhney, for the petitioners in Petitions Nos.
These petitioners also thereupon filed the petition challenging the validity of the order of transfer made by the Commissioner of Income tax on October 20, 1953, and the proceedings entertained by the Income tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala, thereafter, on the same ground of the ultra vires character of s. 5 7A of the Act.
On January 22, 1955, the Central Board of Revenue transferred the cases of petitioner No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. These petitions under Art.
ment order was passed against him but he also challenged the validity of the said order of transfer and the proceedings entertained by the Income tax Officer, Special Circle, Amritsar, thereafter, on the same grounds as the other petitioners.
112156 is S. Ram Singh, soil of S. Narain Singh.
Demands were made upon the petitioner for payment of the amount of income tax thus assessed whereupon he filed this petition impeaching the validity of the order of the Central Board of Revenue dated June 29, 1955, and the proceedings entertained by the Income tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala,on the ground that s. 5 7A of the Act was ultra vires the Constitution.
After the dates of such transfer to the Income tax Officer, Central Circle VI, Delhi, the said officer instituted several proceedings against them and the petitioners challenged in these petitions the validity of the said orders of transfer and all the subsequent proceedings including the assessment orders as well as the order levying penalty for number payment of the income tax which had been assessed prior thereto, on the ground that s. 5 7A of the Act was ultra Vires the Constitution and all the proceedings which were entertained against the petitioners by the Income tax Officer Central circle XI Calcutta, and by the Income tax Officer Central Circle VI, Delhi, were without jurisdiction and void.
85/56 was filed by M s. Bhagwan Das Sud Sons, Merchants, Hoshiarpur, carrying on business in rosin and turpentine there.
C. Chatterji and D. N. Mukherji, for the petitioners in Petition No.
No objection wag taken by the petitioner to this order of transfer until after the assess.
