https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6938 The compulsory deposit scheme was upheld as a valid revenue measure because the statute authorised the time and manner of deposit, and the first proviso to paragraph 4(1) was treated as a special, severable time limit for the relevant year. The word "payable" in section 4(3) was construed in its ordinary, contextual sense, not by importing the Income-tax Act meaning, because the scheme required deposit before assessment and linked it to deduction from surcharge. The discrimination challenge also failed, as no unequal treatment was shown and the longer period in the proviso was available to the petitioners. en-us Mon, 21 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6938 The compulsory deposit scheme was upheld as a valid revenue measure because the statute authorised the time and manner of deposit, and the first proviso to paragraph 4(1) was treated as a special, severable time limit for the relevant year. The word "payable" in section 4(3) was construed in its ordinary, contextual sense, not by importing the Income-tax Act meaning, because the scheme required deposit before assessment and linked it to deduction from surcharge. The discrimination challenge also failed, as no unequal treatment was shown and the longer period in the proviso was available to the petitioners. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 21 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6938