Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1061a
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. This appeal is from the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ No. 2291 of 1970, which was heard by a Bench of five Judges. Four Judges held that Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it amended the relevant provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. Pandit, J., however, held that the impugned Act was intra vires the legislative powers of Parliament. The High Court accordingly issued a direction to the effect that the Wealth Tax Act, as amended by Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it includes the capital value of the agricultural land for the purposes of computing net wealth, was ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. We may mention that the majority also held that the impugned Act was not a law with respect to entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; in other words, it held that this tax was not covered by entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule.3. The Wealth Tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC878; [1972]42CompCas168(SC); [1972]83ITR685(SC); (1972)1SCC438; [1972]2SCR965
I.D. Dua, J.1. The Colaba Land and Mills Co., Ltd., (in liquidation) was ordered by the Bombay High Court on October 7, 1959 to be wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1 of 1956 and the Official Liquidator was appointed its liquidator. Earlier on May 1, 1959 the Official Liquidator had been appointed by the High Court its provisional liquidator. On August 23, 1966 the Income-tax Officer (Companies Circle) concerned issued six different notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 proposing to reopen the assessment of the Company and to re-assess it in respect of the assessment years 1950-51 to 1955-56. On December 31, 1966, the Income-tax Officer served further notices under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act upon the Official Liquidator calling upon him to produce accounts and documents specified at the back of the notices and to furnish any information called for by the said officer. At the foot of the said notices it was stated that failure on the part of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1375; (1972)1SCC660; [1972]3SCR247
1. These three appeals, in which the State of Andhra Pradesh is the first appellant, by special leave, are directed against the judgment and order dated May 13, 1971 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a batch of writ petitions, striking down Rule 9, in the Rules relating to the selection of candidates for admission to the Integrated M.B.B.S. Course in the Government Medical College in the Andhra Pradesh area, issued G.O. No. 1648/Health dated July 23, 1970 as also under G.O. No. 1793/Education dated September 23, 1970, regarding reservation of seats in professional colleges for Backward Classes together with the annexure to the said notification containing the list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. The Addl. Director of Medical and Health Services, Hyderabad and Principal, Government Medical College, Guntur, are also appellants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the appeals.2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by G.O. No. 1648/Health dated July 23, 1970 announced Rules for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2563; 1978(2)ELT416(SC); (1972)2SCC560; [1973]1SCR822
M.H. Beg, J.1. The National Tobacco Co. of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), the Respondent in the appeal before us, manufactures Cigarettes, at its Factory in Agrapara, upon which Excise duty is levied by the appellant, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Division (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector'). The rates at which the Excise duty was imposed upon the cigarettes of the Company under the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act of 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were varied, from time to time, by the provisions of Finance Acts of 1951 and 1956 and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act of 1957. The Collector maintained an office at the factory itself for the levy and collection of tax. The Company was required to furnish quarterly consolidated price-lists which used to be accepted for purposes of enabling the Company to clear its goods, but according to the Collector, these used to be verif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC2627; (1973)3SCC1; [1975]SuppSCR491
D.G. Palekar, J.1. In these appeals the challenge is to the seniority list of Income-tax Officers prepared by the Central Board of Revenue in pursuance of the orders of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1038 of 1965 and Writ Petition No. 5 of 1966. The appeal referred to was filed by one Jaisinghani and the Writ Petition by one Mohan Chandra Joshi -- both of whom had been directly recruited as Income-tax Officers, Class I, Grade II. The two proceedings were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment dated February 22, 1967 and a mandamus in similar terms was issued in the two proceedings. These cases have been reported as S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India : [1967]65ITR34(SC) . For the purposes of the present appeals, we shall set out below the order passed in Jaisinghani's case (P. 718).We are accordingly of the opinion that promotees from class II, Grade III to Class I, Grade II Service in excess of the prescribed quotas for each of the years 1951 to 1956 and onwards have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC106; (1972)2SCC788; [1973]2SCR757
A.N. Ray, J. 1. These petitions challenge the Import Policy for Newsprint for the year April 1972 to March 1973. The Newsprint Policy is impeached as an infringement of fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) and right to equality in Article 14 of the Constitution. Some provisions of the Newsprint Control Order 1962 are challenged as violative of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The import of newsprint is dealt with by Import Control Order, 1955 (referred to as the 1955 Import Order). The 1955 Import Order is made in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 3 and 4A of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 (referred to as the 1947 Act). Section 3 of the 1947 Act, speaks of powers of the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise control imports and exports. Section 4A of the 1947 Act contemplates issue or renewal of licences under the 1947 Act for imports and exports. Item 44 in Part V of Schedule I of the 1955 Imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC734; (1973)3SCC435; [1973]2SCR882
A.N. Grover, J.1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution have been brought by or on behalf of the various factories, Ob-operative Societies and Mills which carry on the business' of manufacturing and selling sugar- (hereinafter called compendiously the 'sugar producers') challenging the validity and legality of the Levy Sugar Supply Control Order 1972 made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, hereinafter called the 'Act' fixing the price of levy sugar in the different zones in the country and praying for various reliefs. Writ Petitions Nos. 279 to 283, 293, 300, 303 and 306 of 1972 are by the sugar producers in Andhra Pradesh', zone; Writ Petitions Nos. 297 and 304 of 1972 by the Sugar producers in North Bihar zone and Writ Petitions Nos. 296 and 298 of 1972 by those in the Punjab zone.2. The principal questions that arise for our determination are the following:(1) What is the true scope and ambit of Section 3(3C) of the Act?(2)(a) Whether the system o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC537; (1973)1SCC129; [1973]2SCR860
J.M. Shelat, J. 1. These three appeals, by certificate, arise out of three writ petitions filed in he High Court of Delhi for quashing the Sugar (Price Determination) Order, 1971 made Under Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 10 of 1955, and for a direction requiring the Central Government to refix the ex-factory price for 1970-71 in respect of sugar required to be sold to Government Under Section 3(2)(f) of the Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions and hence these appeals.2. The appellants are three public limited companies having factories in Haryana State where they carry on the business of manufacturing and selling sugar, an essential commodity within the meaning of the Act. The Act empowers the Central Government to control the production and distribution inter alia of sugar with the object of maintaining its supply and its equitable distribution.3. Under Section 3, the Central Government has been authorised to require a manufacturer of sugar to sell to it o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1425; (1973)1SCC856; [1974]1SCR1
J.M. Shelat, Acting C.J.1. At all material times the petitioner was an employee of the Government of West Bengal in the Collectorate of Hooghly District. He was arrested on January 29, 1972 pursuant to the order of detention dated January 25, 1972 passed by the District Magistrate, Hooghly under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971. The said order was passed 'with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order'. He was served with the grounds of detention on that very day. The said grounds of detention were in connection with certain incidents alleged to have taken place on April 25, 1971, September 14, 1971, October 12, 1971 and January 19, 1972, as set out therein.2. Before the said order was issued, the petitioner and six others, also Government employees in Hooghly Collectorate, were prosecuted for their alleged parts in the first two incidents on the basis of the first informa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1461; (1973)4SCC225; [1973]SuppSCR1
1. I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts. Part I will deal with Introduction; Part II with interpretation of Golakhnath case; Part III with the interpretation of the original Article 368, as it existed prior to its amendment; Part IV with the validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act; Part V with the validity of Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VI with the validity of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VII with Constitution (Twenty- ninth Amendment) Act; and Part VIII with conclusions.PART I-Introduction2. All the six writ petitions involve common questions as to the validity of the Twenty- fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution. I may give a few facts in Writ petition No. 135 of 1970 to show how the question arises in this petition. Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970 under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his ...
Tag this Judgment!