Madras High Court
VEERASWAMI,KUNHAMED KUTTI
Gorborandum Universal Ltd, Madras - Appellant
Versus
Union of India, represented in the Ministry of Finance (Dept.of Revenue) - Respondent
Decided On : 12/01/1965
INCOME TAX - S. 99(1)(iv) - FIFTH SCHEDULE, RULE 1(a)(i) - APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE - TO BE MADE TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NOT CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - MANDAMUS - NOT ISSUABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a public limited company, engaged in the manufacture of grinding wheels and abrasives, claimed exemption from supertax on dividends distributed to its corporate shareholders under S. 99(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They applied for a certificate from the Central Board of Revenue, which was later reconstituted as the Central Board of Direct Taxes, but their request was denied.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application for a certificate should have been made to the Central Government, not the Central Board of Revenue or the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The court also clarified that it did not have the power to direct the Central Government to issue a certificate, but could only issue a mandamus directing the Central Government to exercise its power to decide on the merits of the application.
Issues: 1. Whether the application for a certificate under the Fifth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be made to the Central Government or the Central Board of Revenue/Central Board of Direct Taxes? 2. Whether the court has the power to direct the Central Government to issue a certificate under the Fifth Schedule?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Fifth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961, clearly mentions the Central Government as the authority to be satisfied in the matter of issuing a certificate, not any other authority. 2. The court's power under Art. 226 of the Constitution extends only to issuing a mandamus directing an authority to exercise its power and decide according to the merits, not to directing the authority to reach a particular decision.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, but the court suggested that the Central Government dispose of any future application by the petitioners on its merits within two months of its receipt.
VEERASWAMI, J. : This petition is for a rule of mandamus directing the respondent, Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Finance, to issue a recognition that die Central Government is satisfied that the petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of one or more of the articles specified in Part A of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners are a public limited company incorporated in 1954, and are said to be engaged during the relevant time in the manufacture of grinding wheels and abrasives, being the industrial machinery specified in sub-clause (iii) of clause C of Part A of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The petitioners, as they aver, are assessed to income-tax by the First Income-tax Officer City Circle for 1960-61 and 1961-62, and in the course of these assessments they claimed that their profits in the manufacture of grinding wheels were exempt from income-tax under S. 15-C of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922. This contention, according to the petitioners, was accepted, and exemption granted under that provision. After the coming into force of the new Act with effect from 1-4-1962, which would have effect on the petitioners' assessments for 1962-63, the petitioners claimed that the profits in the manufacture of grinding wheels satisfied the conditions prescribed in the Fifth Schedule to the Act and therefore any dividend distributed by petitioners to its corporate shareholders would be exempt from super tax in the assessments of the corporate shareholders under clause (iv) of Sub-Section (1) of S. 99 of the Income-tax Act 1961. Under the relevant statutory provisions a pre-requisite for exemption of such supertax would be the satisfaction of the Central Government that the petitioners are wholly or mainly engaged in an industry for the manufacture or production of one or more of the articles specified in any of the items in Part A of the Fifth Schedule. They, therefore, made an application on 18-4-1963 to the Central Board of Revenue, for recongition as a company engaged in the manufacture of bonded abrasives, which, we are told, is a comprehensive expression to include grinding wheels and other articles of a similar nature produced by the same process. After prolonged delay and calling for particulars more than once at various levels, the Under-Secretary to the Central Board of Direct taxes, by a communication dated 4-3-1984, intimated the petitioners with reference to their application that the Board of Revenue had considered the matter, but it regretted that the request regarding exemption contemplated under the Fifth Schedule read with S. 99(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act 1961, could not be acceded to. There was a further communication on 14-5-1964 from the Secretary to the Central Board of Direct taxes to the petitioners to the effect that if the other condition in sub-clause (2) of rule 1 of the Fifth Schedule was not fulfilled, which would disentitle the shareholders to the claim for exemption on that ground alone, die question of the Central Government satisfying itself about the condition in sub-clause (1) of the rule did not arise. It is in these circumstances the petitioners have approached this court for a direction as aforesaid.
2. On the view we take, we think it unnecessary to go into the merits of the petitioners' claim for a certificate from the Central Government. The application of the petitioners for a certificate was made not to the Central Government, but to the Central Board of Revenue as it figured then. Section 99(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act 1961 reads :
"(1) Supertax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of the following amounts which are included in his total income. .......
(iv) if the assessee is a company, any dividend received by it from an Indian Company, subject to the provisions contained in the Fifth Schedule".
Rule 1, Clause (a)(1) of the Fifth Schedule provides that supertax shall not be payable in respect of any dividend which is a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.