SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 130

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
24th March, 1961
S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
Devanagere Cotton Mills Ltd. Devanagere, Appellants
Versus
Dy. Commissioner, Chitradurga and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (Mr. V. L. Narasimhamoorty, Advocate, M/s. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath & P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. R. N. & Co. with him), for Appellants; M/s. R. Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen, Advocates, for Respondents.

Advocates:
J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, P.L.VOHRA, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, T.M.SEN, V.L.NARASIMHAMURTY

The General Clauses Act X of 1897 is applicable to the interpretation of the Indian Cotton Cess Act, 1923, and the definition of "Collector" in the General Clauses Act applies to the Act.

Headnote:

{'KEYWORD': 'Indian Cotton Cess Act, 1923', 'SUBJECT': 'Cotton Cess', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['S. 6', 'S. 7', 'S. 2(a)'], 'SUMMARY': 'The court interpreted the definition of "Collector" in the Indian Cotton Cess Act, 1923, and held that the Deputy Commissioner of a district in the Mysore State area was a Collector within the meaning of the Act and could exercise the powers of the Collector under the Act.'}

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, owners of a cotton mill in the Mysore State area, challenged the demand for returns under the Indian Cotton Cess Act, 1923, by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, on the ground that he was not a "Collector" within the meaning of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Deputy Commissioner was a Collector within the meaning of the Act, as the General Clauses Act X of 1897, which defines "Collector" as the Chief Officer-in-charge of the revenue administration of a district, was applicable to the interpretation of the Act.

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner of a district in the Mysore State area was a Collector within the meaning of the Indian Cotton Cess Act, 1923.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the General Clauses Act X of 1897 was applicable to the interpretation of the Indian Cotton Cess Act, 1923, and that the definition of "Collector" in the General Clauses Act applied to the Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the High Court.

Judgment

SHAH, J. : With a view to enable him to assess cotton cess payable by the appellants under the Indian Cotton Cess Act, 1923-hereinafter called the Act-the Deputy Commissioner, District Chitradurga, Mysore State purporting to exercise powers under S. 6 of the Act called upon the managing agents of the appellants by letter dated January 13, 1956, to submit in the prescribed from a statement showing the total quantity of cotton consumed or processed in the factory. The appellants declined to carry out the requisition and filed a petition in the High Court of Mysore for a writ of mandamus, prohibition or other appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga and the State of Mysore from "collecting assessments under the Indian Cotton Cess Act XIV of 1923" in enforcement of the order dated January 13, 1956.

2. The sole ground urged in support of the petition was that the appellants were bound to furnish returns under the Act to the Collector who alone could assess the cess, and the Deputy Commissioner not being a "Collector" within the meaning of the Act and not being an officer appointed by the Central Government to perform the duties of the Collector under the Act, the demand for returns was "unconstitutional". The High Court rejected the petition and against that order, this appeal is preferred with certificate of fitness granted by the High Court.

3. The area in which the mill of the appellants is situate was originally part of the Indian State of Mysore. The State of Mysore became a Part B State within the Union of India on the promulgation of the Constitution of January 26, 1950. The Act was one of the many enactments of the Indian Legislature applied to the State of Mysore by the "Part B States Laws Act" 3 of 1951. The Act provides for the levy of a cess on cotton and for effectuating that purpose imposed by S. 6 a duty upon the owner of a mill to submit to the Collector monthly returns of cotton consumed or prosessed in the mill. The authority as assess cess is by S. 7 of the Act vested in the "Collector" which expression in the Act means "in reference to cotton consumed in a mill, the Collector of the district in which the mill is situated of an other officer appointed by the Central Government to perform the duties of a Collector under this Act". The powers of the Collector under the Act can therefore be exercised by the Collector of the district in which the mill is situate or by the officer appointed by the Central Government to perform the duties of a Collector. It is common ground that the Central Government has not issued an order appointing the Deputy Commissioners in the Mysore area to exercise powers under the Act. The power to assess cotton cess in the Mysore State area can therefore be exercised by the Collector and no other officer. The expression "Collector of the district" which is a component of the first part of the definition is not defined in the Act. But the General Clauses Act X of 1897 defines "Collector" as meaning "in a Presidency town, the Collector of Calcutta. Madras or Bombay as the case may be and elsewhere the Chief Officer-in-charge of the revenue administration of a district". The revenue administration of a district under the Mysore Land Revenue Code is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner and he is the chief officer-in-charge of the revenue administration of a district. The Deputy Commissioner is therefore a Collector within the meaning of the General Clauses Act.

4. Counsel for the appellants however contends that the General Clauses Act X of 1897 was not extended by the Part B States Laws Act to the State of Mysore and therefore the definition of "Collector" under the General Clauses Act cannot be requisitioned in aid to interpret the expression "Collector" used in the Act. But the argument proceeds upon a fallacy as to the true nature of the General Clauses Act. By S. 3 of that Act, in all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top