JUDGMENT

DERBYSHIRE, C.J. - This matter originally came before McNair, J., who referred it to the Chief Justice, under rule 3 of Chapter V of the Original Side Rules which is as follows :-

"Where it shall appear to any judge at any stage of a suit, application or other matter, that it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935, or any order in council made thereunder, he shall report to that effect to the Chief Justice, who shall constitute a Bench of two or more judges to hear the suit, application or other matter."

Put shortly the plaintiffs claim that certain provisions of the Indian income tax Act of 1922 as amended by the income tax Act of 1939 are beyond the law making powers of the Indian central Legislature and that in consequence certain money they have paid under protest to the Government of India as income tax under the protest to the Government of India as income tax under the said provision was not legally payable by them; they claim a declaration that the said provision are ultra vires and ask for a return of the money so paid and other reliefs.

The defendants in their written statement have pleaded Section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which in its material part provides :-

"No High Court shall have any original jurisdiction in any matter concerning the revenue, or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof according to the usage and practice of the country of the law for the time being in force."

In order to decide whether and to what extent this plea will avail the defendants it is necessary to go into the facts of the case and the relevant provision of the law. There is no difference between the parties as to the facts.

The Governor-General in Council as representing the Government of India is a party to the suit and has appeared through Sir Asoka Roy, the Advocate-General of Bengal, not acting as the Advocate General of Bengal, but as Counsel representing the Government of India; we were informed by Sir Asoka Roy that it was not necessary to give special notice to the Government of India or the Advocate-General of India under Order XXVII-A of the CPC as they were aware of the case and were represented by him.

The suit is brought by the Raleigh Investment Co., Ltd., a joint stock company incorporated under the English Companies Act, having its registered office at 13, Athol Street, Douglas, in the Isle of Man and its main office at Egham, Surrey, England. We are informed from the Bar that the reason for the Companys registration in the Isle of Man was to save registration fees. For all practical purposes it is an English Company. It has no business premises in India, but holds the bulk of the shares in a number of companies which carry on the business of manufacturing and selling tobacco and cigarettes in India. These companies are as follows : (1) The Imperial tobacco Company of India Ltd; and (2) Carriers (India) Ltd. The two above companies which are referred to as "the rupee companies" are incorporation in India under the Indian Companies Act and have their registered offices and business headquarters at 37, Chowringhee, Calcutta, within the original jurisdiction of this Court. (3) The Arcadian Tobacco Co., Ltd.; (4) The Cigarette Manufactures (India) Ltd.; (5) Dominion Tobacco Co., Ltd.; (6) General Advertising Agency (India) Ltd.; (7) Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co., Ltd.; (8) Peninsular Tobacco Co., Ltd.; (9) Printers (India) Ltd.; (10) Thomas bear and Sons (India) Ltd.; and (11) Tobacco Manufacturers (India) Ltd.

The Companies Nos. 3 to 11 inclusive are companies under the English Companies acts and are referred to as "the sterling companies."

A statement was put in by the plaintiffs which is agreed by the defendants to be correct and it is as follows :

"The nine sterling companies are controlled in London where the Boards of Directors sit, the share registers are situate, and dividends are declared. The boards in London