9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of the statutory appeal under section 66A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. - Determination of the right of appeal to His Majesty in Council. - Retroactive application of the provisions of section 66A to orders made before the Act of 1926. Analysis: The judgment by the Lahore High Court involved the interpretation of the statutory appeal under section 66A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The petitions sought special leave to appeal from orders made by the High Court of Judicature at Lahore under section 66(2) of the Act. The High Court had refused to certify the cases as fit for appeal to His Majesty in Council. The argument centered around whether the petitioners had a right of appeal to His Majesty in Council and the conditions for such an appeal. The High Court held that the right of appeal was conditional on compliance with section 109(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the petitioners contended that compliance with section 110 of the Code was sufficient. The judgment addressed the legislative history of appeals from High Court orders in India and highlighted the impact of the Tata Iron and Steel & Co., Ltd. case on the right of appeal. The judgment discussed the introduction of section 66A by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1926, which provided for appeals to His Majesty in Council under certain conditions. The judgment further delved into the specific language of section 66A, emphasizing that the appeal to His Majesty in Council was limited to cases certified as fit for appeal by the High Court. The judgment analyzed the text of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 66A, concluding that the right of appeal was confined to cases meeting the certification requirement. The judgment also addressed the issue of retroactive application of section 66A to orders made before the Act of 1926. It cited the principle from the Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving case, stating that provisions affecting existing rights should not be applied retrospectively without clear indication. The judgment found no indication in section 66A for retrospective application and concluded that the petitioners had no statutory right of appeal to His Majesty in Council. In the final analysis, the judgment dismissed both petitions, advising His Majesty accordingly. It considered the special circumstances of the cases but found no grounds for exercising the Prerogative in favor of the petitioners. The judgment highlighted that the right of appeal introduced by the Act of 1926 aimed to rectify an omission from previous legislation, but it did not warrant an exercise of the Prerogative in these cases.
|
