The Constitution is prospective and not retrospective. A law which is validly enacted before the commencement of the Constitution cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. : One Ranjit Singh is the petitioner before us. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, the Incometax Officer, Lucknow, and the Collectors of three districts in Uttar Pradesh, namely, Dehra Dun, Kanpur and Lucknow, being officers under whose orders certain properties of the petitioner and his family have been attached in pursuance of a notice of demand issued under S. 29 of the Indian Incometax Act, 1922, in circumstances which we shall presently state.

2. The facts are shortly these. In 1948, the Central Government referred a number of cases in which the petitioner was concerned to the Income-tax Investigation Commission set up under the relevant provisions of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 (Act XXX of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act. On May 30, 1948, the Secretary of the Commission issued a notice to the petitioner to furnish a list of businesses or concerns in which the petitioner was interested and to produce the account books, registers etc., relating thereto. The petitioner complied with the notice. Then, an Authorised Official appointed by the Commission commenced an investigation into the cases in February, 1949, and in due course submitted a report to the Commission. The Commission heard the petitioner and on April 16, 1949, submitted a report under S. 8-A (1) of the Act. The findings of the Commission appear from the following extract from their report:

"The total tax payable on the undisclosed income up to March 31, 1947, would accordingly be Rs. 6,61,917/-.

..............................................................................

The amount of Rs. 6,61,917/- may be recovered from Mr. Ranjit Singh and from the family assets in the hands of Mr. Ranjit Singh. In view of the admission recorded as number (iii) in para. 6 supra, the tax will also be recoverable from the properties acquired between 1939 and 1947 in the names of Mrs. Ranjit Singh and Mr. Ranjit Singh s sons Baljit Singh and Satendrajit Singh. In the circumstances, we recommend that no penalty be levied on the assessee in respect of non-disclosures and false or incorrect statements so far made either to the income-tax authorities or in the course of the present proceedings (including those before the Authorised Official). Mr. Ranjit Singh and Mr. Vaidyanatha Ayyar (representative of Mr. Ranjit Singh) have asked that they be allowed sufficiently long time to pay up the tax. It has been represented that out of taxes already assessed by the Income-tax Department about Rs. 3,86,000/- is still due and the addition of the amount leviable under this report will bring the assessee s total liability to about 10 1/2 lakhs. Mr. Ranjit Singh has asked that he may be permitted to pay up this sum in not more than five years, in instalments of not less than a lakh of rupees at a time. While we do not wish to go into the details of the offer, we recommend this request for time for favourable consideration by Government."

Then, on November 7, 1949, the petitioner, his wife and two sons submitted a petition to the Commission in which they accepted the findings of the Commission as correct and offered to pay the tax in instalments in accordance with certain terms of settlement. Some of these terms are :

"We offer to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,61,917/- as per the following instalments :

(1) on or before the 31st March, 1951, Rs. 1,00,000/-

(2) on or before the 31st March, 1952, Rs. 2,31,000/

(3) on or before the 30th June, 1952, Rs. 3,30,917/-.

(4) We, however pray that so far as the last instalment is concerned in case we are unable to pay the same by the date mentioned above and are able to satisfy the Central Board of Revenue that we have failed to raise the money for reasons beyond our control and for no fault of our own, a suitable extension of time may be granted.

(5) In respect of the other instalments, we agree that in case of default in the payment of any one of them, the whole amount o