TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1955 (9) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and yarn business and Sudarsana Oil Mill business were divided between the two branches. The Income-tax Officer negatived the claim of division, but on appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was upheld. On further appeal by the Department, it was held by the Tribunal that there was division as regards some of these properties and that there was none as regards certain others. The assessee thereupon applied to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer to the High Court a question formulated by him. There were two appeals before the Tribunal, I.T.A. Nos. 5831 and 5832, arising out of two assessments for the above mentioned assessment years. The Tribunal declined to do so and the matter was brought before us by the assessee under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. This Court directed the Tribunal to state a case and submit for the opinion of this Court a question of law arising out of their decision. That order of this Court was passed on C.M.P. Nos. 4391 and 4392 of 1954. The present petition is filed as an interlocutory application in C.M.P. No. 4392 of 1954, which was the main petition and seeks stay, as above stated, of the collection of the arrears....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by invoking our jurisdiction under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and article 227 of the Constitution, of India. The learned counsel points out that the proviso to article 225 of the Constitution of India removes the limitations previously in force upon the power of the High Court because of section 226(i) of the Government of India Act, 1935 (corresponding to section 106 of the earlier Act of 1919). Now it is true that the proviso to article 225 removes the bar upon the exercise of "original Jurisdiction by any of the High Courts with respect to any matter concerning the revenue or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof", but it is obviously not an article conferring jurisdiction. All that this proviso does is to take away tire restrictions which were imposed by section 226. So long as that action was in force, the High Court could not have acted under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the collection of income-tax pending a reference, there being little doubt that the High Court would be exercising original Jurisdiction in answering a reference. The question, therefore, now is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ards the exercisability of our inherent power under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code our jurisdiction under article 227 clearly extends to cover a case like the present. It is now settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath ([1954] S.C.R. 565), that the power of "superintendence" vested in the High Courts under article 227 of the Constitution is not merely administrative, but also judicial. The Supreme Court remarked in that case as follows: "It is significant to note that sub-section (2) to section 224 of the I935 Act has been omitted from article 227. This significant omission has been regarded by all High Courts in India before whom this question has arisen as having restored to the High Court the power of judicial superintendence it had under section 15 of the High Courts Act, 1861, and section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915. See the cases referred to in Moti Lal v. The State (I.L.R. [1952] 1 All. 558 at p. 567). Our attention has not been drawn to any case which has taken a different view, and, as at present advised, we see no reason to take a different view." They observed: "This power of superintende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his rights in the pending proceeding". It is said that our answer to the reference that will be made by the Tribunal may at best indirectly involve the refund of a certain amount of tax collected from the assessee, but there will be no final determination by us of any rights of the parties to the proceeding. We must acknowledge that there is considerable force in this contention of the learned Advocate-General. We, however, do not think that the Supreme Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath intended to define the scope of judicial power under article 227. The word "superintendence" is of very wide connotation and it would be undesirable, even if it were possible, to map out the domain within which it is to operate. It is of course to be rarely resorted to and should be invoked generally only where there is no other remedy available. We are not prepared to accept the broad contention that this Court can, in no case, pass such an order as is now sought. After we took time for consideration of this matter, the learned Advocate-General indicated to us that he might be allowed to raise also the objection that as the Commissioner of Income-tax having jurisdiction in the matt....