SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., M.H. KANIA, J.
Tata Tea Ltd. and another Petitioners,
Versus
State of W.B. and others Respondents.
Writ Petns.Nos. 5409-10, 5411-12 of 1980, with 358 and 12807-12808 of 1984, D/- 5-5-1988
WITH
Tata Tea Ltd. and another, Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala and others, Respondents.
WITH
M/s. Goodricke Group Ltd. and another, Petitioners
Versus
State of W.B. and others, Respondents.
WITH
M/s. Mcleod Russel (India) Ltd. and another, Petitioners
Versus
State of W.B. and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Dr. Devi Paul, Sr. Advocate, Ms. M. Seal, and Mr. H. K. Dutt, Advocates with him for Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 5409-12 of 1980 and 12807-12808 of 1984. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P. N. Tiwari, Mr. Manoj Arora, MR.S. Rajappa and MR.S. R. Srivastava, 1438 Advocates, with him for Petitioners in W.P. No. 358 of 1984, Mr. P.S. Poti, Sr. Advocate, Mr. V. J. Francis and Mr. N. N. Popli, Advocates, with him for Respondents in W. P. Nos. 5411-12 of 1980, MR.S. C. Manchanda, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. B. Ahuja, and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him for U.O.I. Mr. Tapas Ray, Sr. Advocate, Mr. H. K. Puri, Mr. G. S. Chatterjee and Mr. Dalip Sinha, Advocate with him for Respondents in W.P. Nos. 12807-08 and 5409-10 of 1980. Mr. D. P. Mukherjee, Advocate, for the Intervenor.
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 – Income-tax Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 5 – Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944 – Section 295 – Income-tax Rules, 1922 – Petitioners in Civil Writ Petitions are the Tata Tea Limited and a shareholder of the said Company – Petitions are directed against the State of a West Bengal, Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax of West Bengal, West Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Calcutta Range-I, Union of India and Income-tax Officer, O-Ward, Companies District-II, Calcutta. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petitions are also the Tata Tea Limited and a shareholder thereof respondents are State of Kerala, Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax at Kerala, Union of India and the concerned Income-tax Officer – Petitioners in other writ petitions are Tea Companies and shareholders thereof and the respondents are ranged on similar lines as above –Held, It was contended by Mr. Potti and Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Respondent States that R. 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 was not a part of an enactment and could not be regarded as an enactment and hence it need not be taken into account in considering the definition of the term "agricultural income" under the Constitution – It was pointed out by them that, unlike which provided that the rules made under the said section would have effect, after publication in the Gazettee, as if enacted in that merely provided inter alia that a rule framed had to be laid, as soon as may be, before each House of Parliament while it is in Session for a total period of thirty days and unless it was directed to be deleted or amended by both Houses of Parliament it would be given effect to are unable to accept this submission same meaning as attributed to it for the purposes of enactments relating to Indian income-tax and in our view, it is quite clear of the Income-tax Rules, 1922 pertain to and are bound up with the definition of the term "agricultural income" for the purposes of laws or enactments pertaining to Indian income-tax and hence the provisions of those rules have to be taken into account in considering the meaning of the term "agricultural income" Constitution – Order accordingly.
Judgment
KANIA, J. :- These writ petitions are filed by Public Limited Companies growing and manufacturing tea in the States of West Bengal and Kerala respectively. Although, there are some differences in the facts, the material facts are largely common and the questions raised in the petitions can be fairly regarded as common questions of law. They are, therefore, being disposed of together by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 5409- 10 of 1980 are the Tata Tea Limited and a shareholder of the said Company. These petitions are directed against the State of a West Bengal, Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax of West Bengal, West Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Calcutta Range-I, Union of India and Income-tax Officer, O-Ward, Companies District-II, Calcutta. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 5411-12 of 1980 are also the Tata Tea Limited and a shareholder thereof. The respondents are State of Kerala, Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax at Kerala, Union of India and the concerned Income-tax Officer. The petitioners in other writ petitions are Tea Companies and shareholders thereof and the respondents are ranged on similar lines as above.
3. The petitioners are Public Limited Companies growing as well as manufacturing tea and selling the same. As far as the petitions directed against the State of West Bengal are concerned, the challenge therein is to the constitutional validity of Sections 3 and 5 of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1980. The Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944 provides for the levy and collection of agricultural income-tax in the then Province of Bengal, the predecessor Province to the present State of West Bengal and, after the coming into force of the Constitution, the State of West Bengal. By the said amending Act, for the first time, sub-sections (2) & (2A) of Section 8 of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act were omitted and always deemed to have been omitted. It is alleged by the petitioners that as a result of the omission of sub-sections (2) & (2A) of Section 8 of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, the State Legislature has sought to assume the power, -competence and jurisdiction to impose agricultural income-tax on the entire income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by a seller and has thereby transgressed the constitutional limitations contained in Article 246(3) of the Constitution of India read with Entry 46 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
4. In the aforesaid Writ Petitions Nos. 5409-10 of 1980 the process of manufacturing tea has been described in some detail. To put it very briefly, the green tea grown by the tea growers is withered by exposure to air under natural or controlled conditions. Certain machinery and equipment is required for the aforesaid process. The object of withering is partial dehydration of shoots to make them leathery and flaccid for rolling and chemical changes. The change brought about is the increase in caffeline, soluble sugars and amino acids. The second process involves rupture and distortion of tea shoots into smaller sizes to allow mixing of enzymes and substrates. This is known as rolling. The process of rolling is carried out by mechanical bruising, tearing, cutting, crushing, breaking and twisting tea leaves for which crank roller/rotorvane/C.T. C. machines are employed. The third process is of fermentation which involves exposure to air under controlled temperature. For this the equipment required is fermentation chamber/trags/floor/troughs. As a result of this process, the colour of tea changes from green to coppery. The next process is of drying or roasting for stoppage of fermentation; dehydration to ensure keeping the quality of the product. Drying or roasting has to be done at a temperature of 30 degrees celsius and humidity exposure to blast of hot air in a counter-currnet-dryer. The equipment
relied on : Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, Kerala
State of Tamil Nadu v. Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd.
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.