SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., P.N. BHAGWATI AND D.A. DESAI, JJ.
The Union of India, Appellant
Versus
Gosalia Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1715 of 1972
Decided on 5-5-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. S. Desai, Sr. Advocate (Miss A. Subhashini, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. S. T. Desai, Sr. Advocate (M/s. M. V. Shah and R. P. Kapur, Advocates with him), for Respondent.
Income-tax Act, 1961 - Section 172 – Claim of compensation – Trial court – Jurisdiction - Before the departure from any port in India of any such ship, the master of the ship shall prepare and furnish to the Income-tax Officer a return of the full amount paid or payable to the owner or charterer or any person on his behalf, on account of the carriage of all passengers, live-stock, mail or goods shipped at that port since the last arrival of the ship thereat - Provided that where the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that it is not possible for the master of the ship to furnish the return required by this sub-section before the departure of the ship from the port and provided the master of the ship has made satisfactory arrangements for the filing of the return and payment of the tax by any other person on his behalf, the Income-tax Officer may, if the return is filed within thirty days of the departure of the ship, deem the filing of the return by the person so authorized by the master as sufficient compliance with this sub-section – Held, all charter parties are not contracts of carriage. Sometimes the ships itself, and the control over her working and navigation, are transferred for the time being to the persons who use her. In such cases the contract is really one of letting the ship, and, subject to the express terms of the charter party, the liabilities of the ship-owner and the charterer to one another are to be determined by the law which relates to the hiring of chattels, and not by reference to the liabilities of carriers and shippers - According to fall into three main categories - Charters by demise, (ii) time charters (not by way of demise), and (iii) voyage charters. "Sometimes categories (i) and (ii) are both referred to as time charters as distinguished from category (iii), and they have this in common that the ship-owners remuneration is reckoned by the time during which the charterer is entitled to the use of services of his ship - Contract in the instant case is of the nature of time-charter party, whether there is a demise of the ship or not being immaterial. Clause 4 of the charter party provides for the payment by the charterers "for the use and hire" of the vessel at the rate of U. S. 4.50 dollars per ton on vessels total deadweight carrying capacity, per calendar month, commencing on and from the date of delivery of the ship, "hire to continue until the hour of the day of her re-delivery". These clauses of the Charter party show that the Aluminum Company took the ship from its owners on a time-charter party, that the owners were entitled to payment for the use and hire of the ship, that the amount was payable irrespective of what use the ship was put to by the time charterers or indeed, whether it was put to any use at all and that no part of the payment can be said to have been made on account of the carriage of goods - Similes can be misleading but if a hall is hired for a marriage, the charges payable to the owner of the place are for the use and hire of the place, not on account of marriage - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:— The respondent, Gosalia Shipping Private Limited, which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act does the business of Clearing and Forwarding and as Steamship Agents. In 1970, respondent acted as the shipping agent of Aluminium Company of Canada, Limited which is a non-resident company. The Aluminium Company time-chartered a ship "M. V. Sparto" belonging to a non-resident company called Sparto Compania Naviera of Panama. The said ship called at the port of Betul, Goa, on March 1, 1970 where it loaded 13,000 long tons of bauxite belonging to the time-charterers, the Aluminium Company. On March 20, 1970 the ship left for Alfred port, Canada. The ship was allowed to leave the port of Betul on the basis of a guarantee bond executed by the respondent in favour of the President of India, undertaking to pay the income-tax payable by the time-charterers under Section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On April 15, 1970, the First Income-tax Officer, Margao, Goa, issued a demand notice to the respondent for payment of Rs. 51,191 by way of income-tax under the aforesaid provision. The respondent filed Special Civil Application No. 31 of 1970 in the court of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, asking for a writ of Mandamus directing the Income-tax Officer to withdraw the demand notice. By a judgment dated October 29, 1971, the learned Judicial Commissioner allowed the respondents Writ Petition and passed an order quashing the demand notice. Having obtained from the Judicial Commissioner a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court under Article 133 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution, the Union of India has filed this appeal.
2. The question as to whether the respondent is liable to pay the income-tax demanded of it by the Income-tax Officer, depends for its decision on the construction of S. 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which read as follows at the relevant time:
"172 (1) The provisions of this section, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the other provisions of this Act, apply for the purpose of the levy and recovery of tax in the case of any ship, belonging to or chartered by a non-resident, which carries passengers, live-stock, mail or goods shipped at a port in India.
(2) Where such a ship carries passengers, live-stock, mail or goods shipped at a port in India, one-sixth of the amount paid or payable on account of such carriage to the owner or the charterer or to any person on his behalf, whether that amount is paid or payable in or out of India, shall be deemed to be income accruing in India to the owner or charterer on account of such carriage.
(3) Before the departure from any port in India of any such ship, the master of the ship shall prepare and furnish to the Income-tax Officer a return of the full amount paid or payable to the owner or charterer or any person on his behalf, on account of the carriage of all passengers, live-stock, mail or goods shipped at that port since the last arrival of the ship thereat :
Provided that where the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that it is not possible for the master of the ship to furnish the return required by this sub-section before the departure of the ship from the port and provided the master of the ship has made satisfactory arrangements for the filing of the return and payment of the tax by any other person on his behalf, the Income-tax Officer may, if the return is filed within thirty days of the departure of the ship, deem the filing of the return by the person so authorised by the master as sufficient compliance with this sub-section.
(4) On receipt of the return, the Income-tax Officer shall assess the income referred to in sub-section (2) and determine the sum payable as tax thereon at the rate or rates in force applicable to the total income of a company which has not made the arrangements referred to in Section 194 and such sum shall be payable by the master of the ship.
(5) For the purpose of determining the tax payabl
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.