Ravindra Kumar Dutta ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....foreign company in foreign currency abroad can be held to be deemed to accrue or arise in india would depend upon the in-depth examination of the facts in each case. if the home salary/special allowance payment made by the foreign company abroad is for rendition of services in india and if as in the present case no work was found to have been performed for the said foreign company then such payment would certainly come under section 192(1) read with section 9(1)(ii). hence, when the post-survey operations revealed that no work stood performed for the foreign company by the four expatriates to the joint venture company in india and that the total remuneration paid was only for services rendered in india, in such a case the tax-deductor assessee was statutorily obliged to deduct tax under section 192(1) of the income tax act. consequently, if any payment of income chargeable under the head salaries falls within section 9(1)(ii) then tds provisions would stand attracted. therefore, the tax deductor assessee were duty bound to deduct tax at source under section 192(1) from the home salary/special allowance (s) paid abroad by the foreign company, particularly when no work stood.....order1. dr. chitale has squarely raised the question of vires of rule 5 of central civil services (conduct) rules, 1964 the effect of which is to ban government employees from participation in any form of political activity. he contends that the ban offends article 19(1)(a) and (c) and that it is not protected by clauses (2) and (4) of article 19 as it cannot be said to have been imposed in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of india or public order or morality. dr. chitale relies upon the decisions of this court in : 1983crilj1872 and : (1983)illj299sc , which to the extent that they go, appear to support his contention. the question raised is of great importance and the acceptance of the contention may lead to complete revision of the accepted civil service philosophy. we think it is desirable that these matters should be heard by a constitution bench. the registry will seek appropriate directions from hon. the chief justice.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Dr. Chitale has squarely raised the question of vires of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 the effect of which is to ban Government employees from participation in any form of political activity. He contends that the ban offends Article 19(1)(a) and (c) and that it is not protected by Clauses (2) and (4) of Article 19 as it cannot be said to have been imposed in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality. Dr. Chitale relies upon the decisions of this Court in : 1983CriLJ1872 and : (1983)ILLJ299SC , which to the extent that they go, appear to support his contention. The question raised is of great importance and the acceptance of the contention may lead to complete revision of the accepted Civil Service Philosophy. We think it is desirable that these matters should be heard by a Constitution Bench. The Registry will seek appropriate directions from Hon. the Chief Justice.