Territorial writ jurisdiction and anti-evasion classification upheld; enquiry confined to the years specifically referred.

A High Court could issue a writ of prohibition against an authorised official within its territorial jurisdiction when that official exercised independent statutory powers unlawfully, even though the superior Commission was outside the State. The enquiry under the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 was confined to the years specifically referred, namely 1942 and 1943, and could not be enlarged beyond that reference. The Act was treated as validly in force and capable of supporting proceedings affecting completed assessments. Section 5(1) was not discriminatory under article 14 because it applied to a distinct class of substantial tax evaders and had a rational nexus with the Act's object.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could issue a writ of prohibition against an authorised official functioning within its territorial jurisdiction though the superior Commission was outside the State; (ii) whether the reference made under section 5(1) of the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 was confined to the specific years 1942 and 1943; (iii) whether the Travancore Act XIV of 1124 was an existing law continued in force and validly brought into operation so as to sustain the impugned proceedings and affect completed assessments; and (iv) whether section 5(1) of the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 was discriminatory and void under article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue (i): whether the High Court could issue a writ of prohibition against an authorised official functioning within its territorial jurisdiction though the superior Commission was outside the State

Analysis: The authorised official was not a mere conduit-pipe. He derived authority under section 6, was entrusted with independent functions in the investigation, and exercised powers affecting the petitioner within the State. A writ under article 226 could issue against a person within the territorial limits who was acting unlawfully or in violation of fundamental rights. The fact that the superior Commission was outside the jurisdiction did not immunise the authorised official, nor could the principal avoid scrutiny merely because its local agent was reached first.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to restrain the authorised official, and the writ of prohibition against him was valid.

Issue (ii): whether the reference made under section 5(1) of the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 was confined to the specific years 1942 and 1943

Analysis: The Government's reference orders expressly related only to evasion alleged for the two stated years. Section 5(1) authorised reference of a case or points in a case, and the scope of the Commission's enquiry had to be gathered from the terms of the reference. There was no general reference covering the entire period from 1940 to the last completed assessment year, and the authorised official could not enlarge the investigation beyond the years actually referred.

Conclusion: The enquiry could lawfully extend only to 1942 and 1943, and the attempt to investigate other years was without authority.

Issue (iii): whether the Travancore Act XIV of 1124 was an existing law continued in force and validly brought into operation so as to sustain the impugned proceedings and affect completed assessments

Analysis: Section 1(3) of the Travancore Act itself enabled commencement by notification and therefore operated from the date of enactment. The Act was in force as an existing law when the United State of Travancore and Cochin came into being and was continued by the Ordinance. The notification fixing the commencement date was authorised and not invalid merely because it chose a date earlier than the notification itself. Further, section 8(2), read with the preserved Travancore income-tax machinery, could apply to completed assessments, and the later parliamentary enactment extending the investigation commission regime did not defeat the continuity or operation of the Travancore law for the transferred cases.

Conclusion: The Act remained valid and operative, and the related proceedings were not void on the grounds urged by the petitioner.

Issue (iv): whether section 5(1) of the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 was discriminatory and void under article 14 of the Constitution

Analysis: The provision targeted a definite class of substantial evaders of income-tax connected with the war period, based on prima facie belief and supported by a special investigative procedure designed to uncover concealed war profits. That class was distinct from persons proceeded against under the ordinary reassessment machinery in section 47 of the Travancore Act XXIII of 1121. The classification had an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the object of the Act. The possibility of selective application did not by itself make the law discriminatory, because the statutory policy and the controlling objective supplied the necessary guidance.

Conclusion: Section 5(1) was not void under article 14.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner's challenges to jurisdiction, scope of enquiry, continuity and validity of the Travancore legislation, and alleged discrimination all failed, so the impugned investigation and the prohibition limited to the unauthorised enlargement of the enquiry stood sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A local writ under article 226 can run against a person within the court's territorial jurisdiction who is independently exercising unlawful statutory powers, and a special anti-evasion classification is constitutionally valid where it is based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the legislative object and does not overlap the ordinary reassessment class.

---