https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277464 Article 363(1) did not bar the High Court from answering the income-tax reference because the dispute arose from the later assessment regime and the earlier Jind agreement, not from the covenant itself. The Court further stated that a pre-merger tax concession granted by a former sovereign is not enforceable in municipal courts after merger unless the successor sovereign recognises it. The PEPSU Administration Ordinances, by applying the Patiala income-tax law to the territory, were treated as displacing inconsistent prior concessions, including clause (23) of the 1938 agreement. The assessment was therefore governed by the PEPSU income-tax law rather than the earlier concessional arrangement. en-us Mon, 07 Jun 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:37:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277464 Article 363(1) did not bar the High Court from answering the income-tax reference because the dispute arose from the later assessment regime and the earlier Jind agreement, not from the covenant itself. The Court further stated that a pre-merger tax concession granted by a former sovereign is not enforceable in municipal courts after merger unless the successor sovereign recognises it. The PEPSU Administration Ordinances, by applying the Patiala income-tax law to the territory, were treated as displacing inconsistent prior concessions, including clause (23) of the 1938 agreement. The assessment was therefore governed by the PEPSU income-tax law rather than the earlier concessional arrangement. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Jun 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277464