AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (respondent No. 2), assessed the petitioner under section 143(3) of the Act by order dated January 4, 2001, determining the total income as Rs. 2,97,730, Rs. 4,482 was determined as tax, Rs. 2,250 was charged as interest under section 234C of the Act for delay in payment of advance tax. Copies of the order as well as the demand notice have been annexed as annexures 1 and 2, respectively, to the writ application. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application under section 154 of the Act for rectification of the total amount and the interest charged under section 234C of the Act. The assessing authority by order dated February 16, 2001, partly allowed the claim and reduced the total income to Rs. 2,92,130 and rejected other prayers. A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that there was unanticipated income in the last quarter of the year cannot be a ground to hold the provision invalid and unconstitutional. Section 234C of the Act runs as follows: "234C. (1) Where in any financial year,- . . . (b) the assessee, other than a company, who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or,- (i) the advance tax paid by the assessee on his current income on or before the 15th day of September, is less than thirty per cent, of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of December, is less than sixty per cent, of the tax due on the returned income, then, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, per month for a period of three months on the amount of shortfall from thirty per cent, or, as the case may be, sixty per cent, of the tax due on the returned income. According to the petitioner, there was no liability for payment of advance tax by September 15, 1997, so she did not deposit any amount. However, she deposited Rs. 5,000 before December 15,1997, and Rs. 55,500 before March 15, 1998. According to the petitioner, the speculation profit of Rs. 1,99,028 was as a result of sale of shares accrued after December 15, 1997, and, thereafter, the advance Income-tax became payable and, accordingly, Rs. 55,500 was paid before March 15, 1998. Thus, the advance tax was duly paid in accordance with the provisions of the Act and, there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ames and other games of any sort or from any gambling or betting of any form or nature whatsoever. A Constitution Bench of the apex court while dealing with the question as to whether the Settlement Commission constituted under the Act has jurisdiction to reduce or waive the interest chargeable under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act held that sections 234A, 234B and 234C in clear terms imposed a mandate of equity under the Act at the rate stipulated therein. The expression "shall" used in the said section cannot be by any stretch of imagination considered as "may". There are sufficient indications in the scheme of the Act to show that the expression "shall" in section 234C was deliberately used by the Legislature and it is not lef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this is particularly true in the case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where, having regard to the nature of the problems required to be dealt with, greater play in the joints has to be allowed to the Legislature. The court should feel more inclined to give judicial deference to legislative judgment in the field of economic regulation than in other areas where fundamental human rights are involved. Nowhere has this admonition been more felicitously expressed than in Morey v. Doud [1957] 354 US 457, where Frankfurter J., said in his inimitable style: 'In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to legislative judgment. The Legislature after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ities and inequities. There may even be possibilities of abuse, but that too cannot of itself be a ground for invalidating the legislation, because it is not possible for any Legislature to anticipate as if by some divine prescience, distortions and abuses of its legislation, which may be made by those subject to its provisions, and to provide against such distortions and abuses. Indeed, howsoever great may be the care bestowed on its framing, it is difficult to conceive of a legislation which is not capable of being abused by perverted human ingenuity. The court must, therefore, adjudge the constitutionality of such legislation by the generality of its provisions and not by its crudities or inequities or by the possibilities of abuse of an....