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

1988 Supreme(SC) 492

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat - II, Ahmedabad, Appellant
Versus
Shri Arvind Narottam (Indl.), Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2034-2036 of 1974, D/- 9-8-1988.
Advocates appeared
Dr. Gauri Shankar, Sr. Advocate, Miss. A. Subhashini, Advocate with him, for Appellant; Mr. Harish Salve and Mrs. A. K. Verma, Advocates, for Respondent.

Advocates:
A.K.VERMA, A.Subhashini, GAURI SHANKAR, HARISH N.SLAVE

Headnote:

Wealth-tax Act – Three trust deeds were executed by the Settlor Narottam Lalbhai for the benefit of the assessee, his wife and his children and grand children – Deed created a trust known as the Arvind Narottam Trust – Deed created a trust called the Arvind Family Trust And the deed created a trust described as the Arvind Kalyan Trust – All the three trust deeds are couched, in identical terms, except in regard to the minimum amounts payable to the beneficiaries out of the income of each year There was one further difference in detail – First two deeds specified a period from the date of execution as the period: during which the net income could be distributed to the assessee, his wife and children, while the third specified a period – Minimum annual payments to be made under the three trust deeds to the assessee by way of maintenance respectively – Under each of the trust deeds the settlor specified the interest of the beneficiaries in the trusts – Pertinent terms of one of them, the Arvind Narottam Trust Deed, may be set forth here. Clauses 7 and 8 of that Trust Deed provide –Held, Appearing on behalf of the revenue made an appeal before us stating that we should really construe the three Trust-Deeds together and see the game of the hidden purpose behind these Trust-Deeds which were, in fact, for the sole and exclusive benefit of the assessee. He drew our attention to the observations of Justice Chinnappa Reddy, with which other learned Judges of the Full Bench agreed – He invited us that having regard to the taxing Statute the tax avoidance device should be exposed – Justice Chinnappa Reddy has noticed the change in judicial attitude to the tax avoidance devices – Justice Reddy mentioned that in the country of its birth the principles of Westminster of condoning tax avoidance have been given a decent burial – In that very country the phrase tax-avoidance is no longer condoned or looked upon with sympathy – It is true that tax avoidance in an under-developed developing economy should not be encouraged on practical as well as ideological grounds. One would wish, as noted that one could get the enthusiasm of Justice Holmes that taxes are the price of civilization and one would like to pay that price to buy civilization – But the question which many ordinary tax-payers very often in a country of shortages with ostentious consumption and deprivation for the large masses ask, is does he with taxes buy civilization or does he facilitate the wastes and ostentiousness of the few – Appeals dismissed.

Judgment

PATHAK, CJI.:- These appeals by certificate granted by the Gujarat High Court are directed against the judgment of the High Court disposing of three Wealth-tax References.

2. The three trust deeds were executed by the Settlor Narottam Lalbhai for the benefit of the assessee, his wife and his children and grand children. The deed dated March, 19, 1955 created a trust known as the Arvind Narottam Trust. The deed dated April 9, 1955 created a trust called the Arvind Family Trust. And the deed dated March 18, 1961 created a trust described as the Arvind Kalyan Trust. All the three trust deeds are couched, in identical terms, except in regard to the minimum amounts payable to the beneficiaries out of the income of each year There was one further difference in detail. The first two deeds specified a period of 18 years from the date of execution as the period: during which the net income could be distributed to the assessee, his wife and children, while the third specified a period of 30 years. The minimum annual payments to be made under the three trust deeds to the assessee by way of maintenance were Rs. 250/-, Rs. 150 and Rs. 250/- respectively. Under each of the trust deeds the settlor specified the interest of the beneficiaries in the trusts. The pertinent terms of one of them, the Arvind Narottam Trust Deed, may be set forth here. Clauses 7 and 8 of that Trust Deed provide :

"7. (a) Whatever income by way of interest or otherwise is received each year by the trustees from the trust fund should be first applied in meeting with the expenses of the management of the trust and the payment of taxes thereof. For a period of 18 years, hereafter, the trustees may pay to Arvind or if Arvind gets married during the period to Arvind, his wife and children or to one or more of these persons, such portion of the net income remaining thereafter as the trustees deem fit. However, the trustees shall pay to Arvind, or if Arvind gets married during the period to each. Arvind and his wife, at least Rs. 150/- every year. After such distribution, if there remains any surplus from the income of any year, it shall be added to the corpus of the fund. If in any year the net income accruing to the fund is less than Rs. 300/- the whole amount should be paid to Arvind and if Arvind gets married during the period to Arvind and his wife in equal shares. If Arvind expires during the period of 18 years hereafter or if Arvind gets married during the period and both Arvind and his wife expire, the whole of the net income of the trust fund should be added to the corpus for a period of 18 years hereafter.

(b) Whatever may be the corpus and the accumulated balance remaining undistributed out of the income of each year shall be paid (as capital) at the end of 18 years hereafter to Arvind, his wife and his children or survivor or such of them in such proportion as the. trustees deem fit. If the trustees are not able to decide upon the persons to whom or the proportion in which the said corpus and accumulated balance of income is to be distributed or it is not possible legally to give effect to the decision of trustees or it is illegal to do so, then the proportion in which the distribution will be made will be an equal share for each of the persons or survivors comprising of Arvind, his wife and his children. If none of the said persons are alive at the time of distribution then the distribution will be made to Niranjan, his wife and children or survivors, all or such of them and in such proportion as the trustees deem fit. If none of the said persons are alive at the time of distribution then the corpus and the balance of income will be given over by the trustees on such conditions as they deem fit as donation to the Gujarat University or any other eduational institution or an institution giving medical aid or attending to the health of public in general.

8. If the trustees so think fit the trustees are hereby authorised to distribute as capital even before the



















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