T.A. Periyanayakan and anr. Vs. Government of Mysore - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the court ruled that the mysore mines act had not become inoperative even after the indian mines act had become applicable to mysore states. - income tax act,1961[c.a.no.43/1961] -- sections 21 (1) & 31(1): [k.l. manjunath & a.s. bopanna, jj] change of sound system in a theater whether to be treated as capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure? held, it has to be seen that whether the change of sound system has increased the revenue or not. admittedly the old sound system was in existence for several years and due to use of the very same sound system for several years, the old system was worn out. if the assessee has provided certain amenities to its customers by replacing the old system with a better sound system, it cannot be said that the assessee has increased its income. instead of repairing the old stereo system, the assessee has installed the dolby stereo system. this has not benefited the assessee in any way with regard to its total income since there is no change in the seating capacity of the theatre or increase in the tariff rate of the ticket. it is a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure.order1. the petitioner is prosecuted for an offence under the mysore mines act. the objection taken 'in limine', to the case on the ground that the act the provision of which is alleged to be contravened has become void on account of the provisions of the constitution and the part b states act, has been over-ruled by the trial magistrate. petitioner seeks revision of this order and proceedings being quashed.2. there is nothing in the constitution of india which renders the mysore act 'ipso facto' void. no. 23 in state list is regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of list l with respect to regulation and development under the control of the union. no. 54 in list 1 is regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the union is declared by parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. it is clear from this that the state is competent to enact laws for mining and mineral development but it is subject to laws of the union about the same. the indian mines act (1923) became applicable to the state as a result of the part e states act. section 6 of that act provides for laws corresponding to the enactments mentioned therein ceasing to be operative. since it is admitted that there is nothing in the indian act which corresponds to the sections now in question and the scope of the mysore act and the indian act is not identical, the purpose of each is not the same. the mysore act as a whole cannot be regarded as being made inoperative. the objection is untenable. the petition is consequently dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner is prosecuted for an offence under the Mysore Mines Act. The objection taken 'in limine', to the case on the ground that the Act the provision of which is alleged to be contravened has become void on account of the provisions of the Constitution and the Part B States Act, has been over-ruled by the trial Magistrate. Petitioner seeks revision of this order and proceedings being quashed.

2. There is nothing in the Constitution of India which renders the Mysore Act 'ipso facto' void. No. 23 in State List is Regulation of Mines and Mineral Development subject to the provisions of List l with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union. No. 54 in List 1 is Regulation of Mines and Mineral Development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the Control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. It is clear from this that the State is competent to enact laws for Mining and Mineral Development but it is subject to laws of the Union about the same. The Indian Mines Act (1923) became applicable to the State as a result of the Part E States Act. Section 6 of that Act provides for laws corresponding to the enactments mentioned therein ceasing to be operative. Since it is admitted that there is nothing in the Indian Act which corresponds to the sections now in question and the scope of the Mysore Act and the Indian Act is not identical, the purpose of each is not the same. The Mysore Act as a whole cannot be regarded as being made inoperative. The objection is untenable. The petition is consequently dismissed.