The court upheld the legality of tax assessments and penalty proceedings, emphasizing the authority of taxing authorities to enforce tax liabilities and the limited grounds for interference in such matters under Article 226.

M.A. Ansari, C.J.

1. Five writ petitions had been filed to vacate the penalty orders against the petitioner for failure to pay the income tax, and A. S. Nos. 541, 542, 543, 544 and 545 of 1957 are against the orders dismissing the petitions. Another writ petition had been filed to vacate the proceedings following the certificate to recover the same amounts of the income tax under the Revenue Recovery Act, and A. S. 546/57 is against the order dismissing that petition. Therefore all the appeals raise same questions of law, that can be adjudicated by a common judgment.

2. The facts in the aforesaid cases are not disputed, and may briefly be stated. The appellant had been a Superintendent of Police, who had retired in 1940, and had been spending his time in studying Vedantha Philosophy. He had gathered a number of disciples, one such person being J. H. Levy. The aforesaid disciple used to come to Travancore from England at regular intervals, stay with the master for a few months, and have the benefit of the appellant's teaching. He had an account in Lloyd's Bank at Bombay, whose entire balance of Rs. 2,41.103-11-3 was on December 13, 1941, transferred to the credit of the account, which he had got the appellant to open in his name in the same bank; and thereafter, he put further sums into the appellant's aforesaid account with the Lloyd's Bank. The Income Tax authorities issued notices and reopened the appellant's assessments to income tax for the assessment years 1121, 1122 and 1123. During the period the disciple had deposited in the appellant's account with Lloyd's Bank Rs. 13,304/-, Rs. 29,948/-, and Rs. 19,983/-; and the appellant had obtained transfers of Rs. 81,200/-, Rs. 47,000/- and Rs. 37,251/-from the Bombay account to his Trivandrum account in the respective years. In the proceedings mentioned earlier, the Income Tax Officer, Trivandrum, reassessed the appellant to fresh income tax on the amounts transferred to the Trivandrum account as the foreign incomes, and brought into the then Travancore State in the relevant assessment years. The appellant's appeals from the aforesaid assessment orders were consolidated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner into one appeal, and dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, but failed there as well. Thereafter, the following two questions were referred:

"(1) Whether the aforesaid receipts from John H. Levy constitute income taxable under the Travancore Income Tax Act, 1122?

(2) Whether there are materials for the Tribunal to hold that the deposits into the assessee's bank account in Bombay by John H. Levy from 1941 as aforesaid represented income that accrued to the assessee outside Travancore State ?

3. The Travancore-Cochin High Court, on March 8, 1956, answered the questions, the answer to the first being in the affirmative and the other in the negative, which have since been confirmed by the Supreme Court. (Vide P. Krishna Menon v. Commissioner of Income tax - (35 ITR 48 : 1959 KLJ 178)).

4. Before the aforesaid orders had been given by the High Court, the Income Tax Officer had begun proceedings and reassessed the appellant to tax for the next two assessment years 1125 and 1126. Against these assessments, appeals, we are told, had been filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which been decided against the assessee. He went in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and at that stage, the High Court's answers to the reference made for the earlier reassessments had been given. It has now been stated before us that the Appellate Tribunal had decided the appeal in view of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to earlier.

5. Such is the earlier history of the five assessment orders for whose realisation the income tax authorities had started penalty proceedings. A show cause notice, dated September 17, 1955, was first issued why penalty proceedings should not be started in respect of the taxes for the assessment years 1121, 1122 and 1123, a