Article 14 bars selecting the harsher tax remedy where two provisions cover the same mistake and one is more burdensome.

Where the same excess depreciation error could be proceeded against under either the 1922 Act or the 1961 Act, choosing the more onerous route under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was held discriminatory because it denied the assessee the shorter limitation period and appellate safeguards available under the 1961 Act. In the absence of any guiding principle for preferring the harsher provision, that selection offended Article 14. The rectification order was therefore quashed and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether rectification action taken under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because the same matter could have been proceeded with under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which carried a shorter limitation period and appellate remedies.

Analysis: The same excess depreciation error was capable of being dealt with either under the 1922 Act or under the 1961 Act. The 1961 Act route would have afforded the assessee appellate remedies and the benefit of a shorter limitation period, while action under section 35 of the 1922 Act exposed the assessee to a more onerous procedure. Applying the principle that where two provisions govern the same situation but one is more burdensome and no guiding principle justifies selection of that provision, resort to the harsher provision offends equality, the Court held that the impugned recourse to section 35 could not stand.

Conclusion: The rectification order under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was discriminatory and unconstitutional, and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rectification was quashed because the taxing authority had adopted the more onerous statutory route in a manner inconsistent with Article 14.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two statutory provisions are applicable to the same taxable mistake and one provision is materially more onerous because it deprives the assessee of appellate safeguards or limitation protection, selection of that provision without guiding standards is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

---