TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1954 (1) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... partners being three in number to wit K. S. Rashid Ahmed, Saeed Ahmed, his son, and Mrs. Zafar Muhammed, his mother. Mrs. Zafar Muhammed died on the 7th of January, 1946, and as a result of her death the partnership stood dissolved. Immediately on the day following, that is to say on the 8th of January, 1946, a new firm was started bearing the same name, with the two surviving partners of the original firm and one Saeeda Begum, a daughter of K. S. Rashid, as the third partner. On the 31st of December, 1947, the Central Government referred the cases of this firm, as well as of the individuals constituting it, to the Income-tax Investigation Commission for enquiry and report under Section 5 of Act XXX of 1947, presumably on the ground that there had been substantial evasion of payment of income-tax in these cases. The authorised official appointed under Section 6(3) of the Act, who figures as respondent No. 2 in all these appeals, in due course started investigation in these cases and the appellants' complaint is, that contrary to the provisions of the Act, he extended his investigations to a period subsequent to the 31st March, 1943, up to which date the income-tax assessment in al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax Commissioner of that State and the mere fact that the location of the Investigation Commission was in Delhi would not confer jurisdiction upon the Punjab High Court to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. The second objection was that the Act itself being of a special nature which created new rights and liabilities, the remedies provided for in the Act itself for any breach or violation thereof were the only remedies which could be pursued by the aggrieved parties and Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution would not be available to the petitioners. The third ground taken was that the Court could not give relief to the petitioners because of Sections 5(3) and 9 of Act XXX of 1947. These contentions found favour with the learned Judges who heard the petitions, and although they did not express any final opinion on the third point raised, they dismissed the applications of the petitioners on the first two grounds mentioned above. It is against these orders of dismissal that the present appeals have been taken to this Court and Dr. Tek Chand, who appeared on behalf of the appellants, has assailed the propriety of the decision of the High Court on both the points. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the following observations :-- " The question is whether the principle of that case can be applied in the present case to the settlement of rent for land in Ganjam, merely on the basis of the location of the Board of Revenue, as a body which is ordinarily resident or located within the town of Madras, or on the basis that the order complained of was made within the town. If so, it would seem to follow that the jurisdiction of the High Court would be avoided by the removal of the Board of Revenue beyond the outskirts of the town, and that it would never attach but for the circumstance that an appeal is brought to, or proceedings in revision taken by, the Board of Revenue. Their Lordships think that the question of jurisdiction must be regarded as one of substance, and that it would not have been within the competence of the Supreme Court to claim jurisdiction over such a matter as the present by issuing certiorari to the Board of Revenue on the strength of its location in the town. Such a view would give jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, in the matter of the settlement of rents for ryoti holdings in Ganjam between parties not otherwise subject to its jurisdiction, which it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the powers and jurisdictions which they had previously, Article 226 confers, on all the High Courts, new and very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs which they never possessed before. " The makers of the Constitution," thus observed Patanjali Sastri, C. J., in delivering the judgment of the Court, " having decided to provide for certain basic safeguards for the people in the new set up, which they called fundamental rights, evidently thought it necessary to provide also a quick and inexpensive remedy for the enforcement of such rights and, finding that the prerogative writs, which the Courts in England had developed and used whenever urgent necessity demanded immediate and decisive interposition, were peculiarly suited for the purpose, they conferred, in the States' sphere, new and wide powers on the High Courts of issuing directions, orders, or writs primarily for the enforcement of fundamental rights, the power to issue such directions, etc. 'for any other purpose' being also included with a view apparently to place all the High Courts in this country in somewhat the same position as the Court of King's Bench in England." There are only two limitations placed upon the exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at remedy is the only one which could be pursued. It is said that the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, itself provides a remedy against any wrong or illegal order of the Investigating Commission and under Section 8(5) of the Act, the aggrieved party can apply to the appropriate Commissioner of Income-tax to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order and thereupon the provisions of Sections 66 and 66-A of the Indian Income-tax Act shall apply with this modification that the reference shall be heard by a Bench of not less than three Judges of the High Court. We think that it is not necessary for us to express any final opinion in this case as to whether Section 8(5) of the Act is to be regarded as providing the only remedy available to the aggrieved party and that it excludes altogether the remedy provided for under Article 226 of the Constitution. For purposes of this case it is enough to state that the remedy provided for in Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable re....