Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Income-tax Officer appointed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could assess income-tax and super-tax on income accruing before 1 April 1950 in Mysore under Section 13 of the Indian Finance Act, 1950, and whether Article 277 of the Constitution prohibited Parliament from providing for levy and collection through such authorities.
Analysis: The challenge on retrospective operation was governed by the contemporaneous constitutional ruling relied upon by the Court. On Article 277, the provision saved the continuance of taxes lawfully levied before the Constitution and did not require that they continue to be assessed and collected only by the pre-Constitution State machinery. The Court held that Parliament could validly provide for a changeover to officers appointed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and that such a course was consistent with efficient administration and not forbidden by Article 277.
Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to assess the appellant for the relevant pre-Constitution period, and the constitutional challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were liable to fail and the assessments were sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 277 preserves the levy of pre-Constitution State taxes but does not freeze the assessment and collection machinery, and Parliament may lawfully provide for their administration through authorities constituted under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.