JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Tendolkar who dismissed the petition preferred by the appellants lor an order upon the Income Tax Tribunal to make a reference to the High Ccurt under Section 66(1), Indian Income-tax Act.

2. The petitioners are a company incorporated in Baroda and they were assessed to income-tax in Baroda under the Baroda State Income Tax Act on 30-5-1949, for the assessment year 1947-48, which corresponded to the accounting year 1946. The petitioners then filed an appeal in the Court of the Huzur Adalat, which right of appeal was given to them under the Baroda law. In March 1949 the State of Baroda merged with India, and on 31-12-1949, the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Act, 1949, was passed. Under this Act, by Section 3 of the Act, the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 was brought into operation and extended to all the merged States as from 1-4-1949. By Section 7 of the Act it was provided ;

"If, immediately before the 26th day of August, 1949, there was in force in any of the merged States any law relating to income-tax, super-tax or business profits tax, that law shall cease to have effect except for the purposes of the levy, assessment and collection of income-tax and super-tax in respect of any period not included in the previous year for the purposes of the assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as extended to that State by Section 3, or as the case may be, the levy, assessment and collection of business profits tax for any chargeable accounting period ending on or before the 31st day of March, 1943, and for any purposes connected with such levy, assessment or collection."

The first proviso to this section was to the following effect :

"Provided that any reference in any such law to an officer, authority, tribunal or Court shall be construed as a reference to the corresponding officer, authority, tribunal or Court appointed or constituted by or under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or, as the case may be, the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, as extended by Section 3 to that merged State."

And the second proviso to that section was to the following effect :

"Provided further that if any question arises as to who such corresponding officer, authority, tribunal or Court is, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final."

3. The Central Government issued an order on 25-7-1950, by which it provided that :

(1) for the first appeal under the Baroda Income Tax Act, the corresponding Authority should be the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided that where the first appeal under the State Law is to be the Huzur Adalat i.e. the former State Privy Council, such appeal shall be to the Appellate Tribunal, and

(2) where under the Baroda Law provision has been made for the second appeal, such appeal shall now be to the Appellate Tribunal."

Therefore, the position under the Act to which reference has been made and the order issued by the Central Government was that the appeal of the petitioners which was pending before [he Huzur Adalat under the Baroda law was to be heard and disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal, a Tribunal which has been constituted under the Indian Income-tax Act, The appeal was heard and disposed of by the Tribunal. Then the petitioners applied to the Tribunal under Section 66(1) to make a reference to the High Court on a point of law and the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to make a reference under Section 66(1). Thereupon the petitioners came to this Court for a writ to compel the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction which, it is said, it possessed and which it had refused to exercise.

4. The question that we have to consider is whether the Appellate Tribunal has to exercise the jurisdiction which is conferred upon it under the Indian Income-tax Act, or it has to discharge the same duties and perform the same functions that the Huzur Adalat would have done under the Baroda law. It must be borne in mind

Click Here to Read the rest of this document