The impugned provisions of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are not unconstitutional and do not violate Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

OBUL REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THESE three appeals (W. As. 67, 68 and 69 of 1964) have been Bench of this Court, consisting of Manohar Pershad, C. J. and Mohd. Mirza, J. , as they were of the opinion that an important question relating to "interpretation of Section 2 (g) and section 4 (ii) of the Expenditure Tax Act (XXIX of 1957) is involved". The appeals arise form the judgment of Jaganmohan Reddy, J. (as he then was) dismissing Writ Petitions 712 to 714 of 1962 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Prince Azam Jah Bahadur, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, for the issue of a Writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ or order directing the Expenditure tax Officer (Respondent) to for bear from taking or continuing any action in pursuance of the notice dated 5-5-62 issued under Section 16 (a) of the Expenditure tax Act for the expenditure assessment year 1959-60.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts necessary for appreciating the question referred to the Full Bench are the following: The assessee, the eldest son of Nizam VII filed expenditure tax returns under the Act for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61, and 1961-62 and the respondent completed the expenditure tax assessments on 27-3-61, 22-1-62 and 25-1-1962 respectively, determining the assessees taxable expenditure for the three years at Rs. 2,34,864, Rs. 1,66,687 and Rs. 2,30,384 and the assessee also paid the tax demands in full. Subsequently, the respondent issued the Act calling upon the assessee to file supplemental returns of expenditure for the three years in question on the ground that the respondent had reason to believe that the assessees expenditure had escaped the assessment or that he has been under-assessed. As the assesssee was not aware of the reasons which promoted the respondent to returns re-open the assessment, he filed supplemental returns of expenditure on 16-7-62 declaring the same figures as shown earlier in the original returns. A date was fixed by the respondent for hearing the assessee or his representative and at the time of hearing, the assessee was informed that the three assessments have been re-opened for the purpose of including the expenditure incurred by his wife, Princess Durre Shahwar, hereinafter referred to as the Princess, under Section 4 (ii) of the Act, as amended by Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1959. The assessee was called upon to file his objections on or before 25-7-1962 failing which the respondent threatened to complete the assessments by including in the assessment of taxable expenditure, the expenditure incurred by his (assessees) wife. It is contended by the assessee that this action under Section 16 (a) of the Act is arbitrary and illegal and the fact that the Princess is the wife of the assessee and she has to be considered as his dependant within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the Act was known to the respondent and was also informed of it. There have been no omissions or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts nor has the respondent come into possession of any information warranting that any expenditure has escaped taxation. Apart from want of jurisdiction, Section 4 (ii) of the Act, it is discriminatory in character, offending Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also the case of the assessee that his wife, the Princess, the lives in London and visits India for a very brief period every year and has her sources of income and property and any expenditure incurred is from out of the monies exclusively belonging to her. The Princess too had filed her own returns for the expenditure incurred by her from out of her own income and the respondents action in reopening the assessments, so as to include in the assessees assessment his wifes expenditure will cause hardship to him. If she is assessed separately on the returns filed by her, she will be entitled to deductions which will not be taken into account if the assessee is to be assessed by adding his wifes expenditure to th