T. C. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Hukumchand mills Ltd. , Indore against the orders of the assessing authority passed in 1951 assessing the petitioner to Industrial Tax for the years 1940-48 and Excess Profits duty for the years 1943-46.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts in this case are these. In the year 1927 a tax was imposed on the cotton mills at Indore in respect of income, profits and gains earned by them. This was under the Industrial Tax Rules 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the original Rules') promulgated by the Holkar Government. Under the Rules as amended from time to time, provisional assessments were first made and the amount of tax used to be realized. Later, the assessments were finalised by a Board against whose orders a first appeal lay to the Member-in-charge Commerce and Industry and a second appeal lay to the Government. In 1949 the Rules were amended by the Indore Industrial tax (Amendment) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the amending Rules') by providing for an assessment by an officer nominated by the Finance Department, a first appeal to an officer nominated by the Minister-in-charge Finance and a second appeal on a point of law tothe High Court. Later, when Madhya Bharat became a Part B State, these taxes were abolished by the Finance Act of 1950 except for assessment, levy and collection of the tax under a liability already incurred but Section 13 (1) thereof provided for the completion of the assessment proceedings by the Income-tax Authorities. In spite of this, the Authorities appointed under the 1949 Rules continued the proceedings in Madhya Bharat and completed them in 1951. Later, an Act was passed in 1954 called the Madhya Bharat Taxes on Income (Validation) Act under which the proceedings taken by these Authorities were validated and pending proceedings were also required to be completed by them. It is admitted by the parties that second appeals against the assessments are pending for decision in this Court.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that the Rules promulgated in 1949 were without legal authority and the appointment of assessing Authorities by the Government as also the assessments made by these authorities are without jurisdiction. Further, after the Finance Act of 1950 they had no power to continue the proceedings as they were replaced by the Income-tax Authorities. According to the petitioner, the validating Act of 1954 does not have the effect of validating the assessment. The petitioner has also stated that both the Amending Rules and the validating Act are discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. The Amending rules are further attacked on the ground that they introduce a procedure which is disadvantageous to the petitioner and cannot have a retrospective effect. Lastly, it is stated that the appointment of officers as Assessing Authorities was in bad faith only to complete assessments hurriedly to appropriate the amounts of excess profits deposited by the petitioner which were otherwise due for refund.

( 4 ) WE need not refer to the provisions of the Excess Profits Duty Rules of 1944 as the assessments in this respect are not challenged. The subject has been referred to by the petitioner to show that an amount of 8 1/2 lacs was refundable under those Rules. This has been appropriated towards the Industrial Tax of about 9 lacs which was assessed finally in 1951.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the State Government, it is contended that the amending Rules of 1949 are valid and are not discriminatory. The Rules only lay down a procedure for assessment and replace the defunct Authorities by new ones, who could validly continue and complete the pending assessments. It is denied that the appointments of the assessing officers were actuated by any ulterior motive or that the assessments made by them were in bad faith. It is conceded that after the Finance Act of 1950, the Assessing Authorities could not function

Click Here to Read the rest of this document