SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., S.C. SEN AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.
Union of India and another etc. etc., Appellants/Petitioners
Versus
A. Sanyasi Rao and others etc. etc., Respondent.
Civil Appeal Nos. 4290-4394 of 1989, with (S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3944-4087 of 1992, Civil Appeal Nos. 2849 and 4198 of 1989, S.L.P. (C) Nos. 13148 of 1989, 2222-26 of 1991; Writ Petn. (C) Nos. 523, 791 etc. of 1988 etc. etc.)
D/- 13-2-1996
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 - Income Tax Act - Section 206C - Contract - Assessment of incomes - Matter arise Income tax Act validity of Sections and of Income-tax Act is posed for consideration - Various assessees challenged aforesaid provisions as ultra virus and beyond legislative competence and also volatize of Articles Constitution of India in few High Courts – Substantially challenge was not accepted by all High Courts - Few High Courts have read down provisions Section of Act - Dissatisfied by same assessee have come up in appeal - Feeling aggrieved by reading down of Section of Act Union of India has come up in appeals – Those are covered by civil appeals - Certain other assessees have challenged aforesaid provisions directly Article of Constitution of India - Those are covered by writ petitions – Held, However denial of relief provided by Sections to particular businesses trades dealt with Section calls different consideration - Even according to Revenue provisions are only machinery provisions - If so why should normal reliefs afforded to all assessees be denied such traders - Prima facie all assessee similarly placed Income Tax Act are entitled to equal treatment -In matter of granting various reliefs provided Sections assessees carrying on business are similarly placed and should there be law negative such valuable reliefs to particular trade or business it should be shown to have some basis and fair and rational - It has not been shown as to why persons carrying on business in particular goods specified in Section are denied reliefs available to others - No plea is put forward by Revenue that these trades are distinct and different even for the grant of reliefs under Sections of Act - Denial of such reliefs to trades specified in Section available to other assessees has no nexus to object sought to be achieved by the legislature - To this extent it appears to us that non obstante clause in Section denying such reliefs has no basis and so unfair and arbitrary and equality of treatment is denied such persons necessitating grant of appropriate relief and other cases - Order accordingly
Judgement
PARIPOORNAN, J. :- In this batch of cases - writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and civil appeals and special leave petitions filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India - substantially similar questions arise for consideration. The matter arise under the Incometax Act, 1961. The validity of Sections 44AC and 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is posed for consideration. Various assessees challenged the aforesaid provisions as ultra vires and beyond legislative competence and also violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India in a few High Courts. Substantially, the challenge was not accepted by all the High Courts. A few High Courts have read down the provisions of Section 44AC of the Act. Dissatisfied by the same, the assessee have come up in appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the reading down of Section 44AC of the Act, the Union of India has come up in appeals. Those are covered by civil appeals. Certain other assessees have challenged the aforesaid provisions directly under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Those are covered by writ petitions. A few assessees, feeling aggrieved by the decisions of the High Courts, have filed special leave petitions seeking leave of this Court to file appeals. Since all these three classes of cases involved consideration of the validity or otherwise of Sections 44AC and 206C of the Act, they were heard together.
2. Section 44AC of the Act was inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 with effect from 1-4-1989. Section 206C of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1988 with effect from 1-6-1988. The above sections are re-produced herein below :-
"44AC. Special provision for computing profits and gains from the business or trading in certain goods :- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 28 to 43C, in the case of an assessee, being a person other than a public sector company (hereafter in this section referred to as the buyer), obtaining in any sale by way of auction, tender or any other mode, conducted by any other person or his agent (hereafter in this section referred to as the seller), -
(a) any goods in the nature of alcoholic liquor for human consumption (other than Indian-made foreign liquor), a sum equal to forty per cent of the amount paid or payable by the buyer as the purchase price in respect of such goods shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of the buyer from the business of trading in such goods chargeable to tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession." :
Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply to a buyer where the goods are not obtained by him by way of auction and where the sale price of such goods to be sold by the buyer is fixed by or under any State Act;
The following explanation is being inserted by the Finance Act, 1990 with effect from 1 April, 1991 :
Explanation :- For the purpose of this clause, purchase price means any amount (by whatever name called, paid or payable by the buyer to obtain the goods referred to in this clause, but shall not include the amount paid or payable by him towards the bid money in an auction, or as the case may be, the highest accepted offer in case of tender or any other mode :
(b) the right to receive any goods of the nature specified in column (2) of the Table below, or such goods, as the case may be, a sum equal to the percentage, specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, of the amount paid or payable by the buyer in respect of the sale of such right or as the purchase price in respect of such goods shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of the buyer from the business of trading in such goods chargeable to tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession."
TABLE
S. No.Nature of goodsPercentage
(1)(2)(3)
i)Timber obtained under a forest leaseThirty-five per cent
ii)Timber obtained by any mode other than
relied on : Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen
Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agricultural ITO
Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam
Twyford Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
East India Tobacco Co. v. State of A.P
Ganga Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
considered : Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of U.P.
East India Tobacco Co. v. State of a.P.
Kunnatlwt Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar
referred to : Murthy Match Works v. CCE
considered : Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar
referred to : E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Ajay Hasia v. KhalidMujib Sehravardi
referred to : Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay
ferred to : Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B.
referred to : Banarasi Doss v. WTO
Baldeo Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax
relied on : Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam
referred to : Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India
Navinchandra Mafatlal v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Bhagwan Dass Jain v. Union of India
Baldeo Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen
relied on : Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen
Anglo-French Textile Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agricultural ITO
Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam
Twyford Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
East India Tobacco Co. v. State of A.P
Ganga Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
considered : Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of U.P.
East India Tobacco Co. v. State of a.P.
Kunnatlwt Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar
referred to : Murthy Match Works v. CCE
considered : Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar
referred to : E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.
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.