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

1967 Supreme(SC) 312

Supreme Court Of India
I T. M. KANNIYAN FRENCH INDIA IMPORTING CORPORATION,pondicherry BALWANT SINGH HIMAL LAL J. TALSANIA
Versus
Income tax Officer,pondicherry
Decided On : October 30, 1967

The President possesses the authority under Article 240 of the Constitution to make regulations for the peace, progress, and good government of the Union territories, including the power to repeal or amend any Act made by Parliament or any existing law applicable to the territory. This power is not limited to matters enumerated in the State List and the Concurrent List.

Headnote:

TAXATION LAWS (EXTENSION TO UNION TERRITORIES) REGULATION NO. 3 OF 1963 - INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 - EXTENSION TO UNION TERRITORIES - PRESIDENT'S POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS - INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 240, 239A, 246(4) OF THE CONSTITUTION - SCOPE AND EXTENT OF PRESIDENT'S POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS - VALIDITY OF REGULATION NO. 3 OF 1963.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, carrying on business in Pondicherry, challenged the vires of the Taxation Laws (Extension to Union Territories) Regulation No. 3 of 1963, contending that the President lacked the authority to promulgate the Regulation under Article 240 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The Court upheld the validity of Regulation No. 3 of 1963, ruling that the President possessed the authority to make regulations for the peace, progress, and good government of the Union territories, including the power to repeal or amend any Act made by Parliament or any existing law applicable to the territory.

Issues: 1. Whether the President had the authority under Article 240 of the Constitution to promulgate Regulation No. 3 of 1963 extending the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the Union territories. 2. Whether the President's power to make regulations under Article 240 was limited to matters enumerated in the State List and the Concurrent List.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Article 240 of the Constitution, holding that it conferred on the President a general power to make regulations for the peace, progress, and good government of the specified Union territories. This power included the authority to repeal or amend any Act made by Parliament or any existing law applicable to the territory. 2. The Court rejected the argument that the President's power to make regulations under Article 240 was limited to matters enumerated in the State List and the Concurrent List. It reasoned that Article 240 granted the President general powers to make regulations for all matters on which Parliament could legislate.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions challenging the validity of Regulation No. 3 of 1963, upholding the President's authority to make regulations under Article 240 of the Constitution.

Judgment

BACHAWAT,

( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the vires of the Taxation Laws (Extension to Union Territories) Regulation No. 3 of 1963. The contention is that the President had no power to promulgate the Regulation under Art. 240 of the Constitution. On 16/08/1962, Pondicherry became a Union Territory. On 5/12/1962, Parliament enacted the Pondicherry Administration Act, 1962 (Act No. 49 of 1962 ). Section 4 (1 ) of this Act provided that all laws in force immediately before 19/08/1962 would continue to be in force in Pondicherry until amended or repealed by a competent legislature or other competent authority. Section 4 (2) empowered the central government to make necessary adaptations and modifications for the purpose of facilitating the application of any such law in relation to the administration of Pondicherry and bringing the provisions of any such law into accord with the provisions of the Constitution. Section 7 provided that all taxes, duties, cesses and fees which immediately before 19/08/1962 were being lawfully levied would continue to be levied in Pondicherry and to be applied for the same purposes, until other provision was made by a competent legislature or other competent authority. After the passing of this Act, the petitioners continued to be sub. jeer to the existing French laws relating to income-tax. On 30/03/1963, the President in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by Art. 240 of the Constitution promulgated the impugned Regulation No. 3 of 1963. The Regulation extended certain Indian Acts relating to taxation to the Union territories mentioned therein. Section 3 (2) of the Regulation extended the Income-tax Act, 1961, subject to the modifications mentioned in Part II of the Schedule, to Pondicherry as from 1/04/1963. Section 4 (1) provided that any law in force in Pondicherry corresponding to the Income-tax Act, 1961 would stand repealed on 1/04/1963. The petitioners carry on business at Pondicherry and are being assessed to income-tax under the Income-tax Act. 1961. They have filed the present writ petitions asking for a declaration that the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not legally extended to Pondicherry and a direction prohibiting the respondents from implementing that Act in relation to Pondicherry.

( 2 ) IN the Constitution of India as originally enacted, India was declared to be a Union of States, [art. 1 (1)]. The States and their territories were specified in Parts A, B and C of the First schedule [art. 1 (2)]. The territory of India consisted of the territories of the States, the territories specified in Part D of the First Schedule (Andaman and Nicobar Islands) and such other territories as may be acquired, [art. 1 (3)]. As original enacted. part VI of the Constitution dealt with Part A States, Part VII dealt with Part B States, Part VIII dealt with Part C States and Part IX dealt with the territories specified in Part D of the First Schedule. The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act passed on 19/10/1956 altered the scheme of division of India in to A B and C States and the territories mentioned in Part D of the first Schedule. Article 1 and the First Schedule were amended so that the territory of India would comprise the territories of the states, the Union territories specified in the First Schedule and such other territories as may be acquired. By cl. 30 added to Art. 66. `union territory` was defined to mean any Union territory specified in the First Schedule and to include any other territory comprised within the territory of India but not specified in that Schedule. Consequential amendments were made in Part VI and other Parts of the Constitution. Parts VII and IX were repealed. Part VIII was drastically amended. The title of Part VIII was altered to that of `union Territories`. The amended Art. 239 provided for the administration of Union territories by the President acting through an administrator to be appointed by him. The amended Art. 240 was in th









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