9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether a certificate under article 132(1) or article 133(1)(b) or (c) of the Constitution can be granted in respect of a judgment and order of the court dated August 26, 1958, in a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution. - Interpretation of the expression "civil proceeding" as used in article 133 of the Constitution. - Whether a proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution is a civil proceeding if it relates to civil rights. - Whether the order passed by the court related to any civil right. - Whether the proceedings for assessment of income-tax are considered civil proceedings. - Whether the order passed by the court was an order in a civil proceeding under article 133 of the Constitution. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad dealt with the issue of whether a certificate under article 132(1) or article 133(1)(b) or (c) of the Constitution could be granted in relation to a judgment and order of the court dated August 26, 1958, in a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution. The court examined the nature of the question of law involved in the case and concluded that no substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution arose. The court held that the question of law pertained to the interpretation of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, making article 132 inapplicable to the case. Regarding the interpretation of the expression "civil proceeding" in article 133 of the Constitution, the court referred to previous decisions of various High Courts, including its own, to determine whether a proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution could be considered a civil proceeding if it related to civil rights. The court highlighted conflicting opinions within its own decisions and cited a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court, which opined that a proceeding under article 226 could never be categorized as a civil proceeding. The court further analyzed whether the order passed in the present case related to any civil right. It emphasized that the order pertained to the quashing of assessment orders in proceedings for the assessment of tax, which the court deemed as revenue proceedings rather than civil proceedings. The court reasoned that the liability to income tax is not a civil right enforceable in courts of law but is created by the Income-tax Act for revenue collection purposes. In considering whether the proceedings for assessment of income tax could be classified as civil proceedings, the court emphasized that such proceedings do not relate to civil rights but are revenue proceedings aimed at gathering revenues for the government. The court highlighted the distinction between civil and revenue proceedings, emphasizing that the liability to income tax is statutory and not a civil right. Ultimately, the court concluded that the application for a certificate under article 133 of the Constitution was not maintainable in the present case as the order passed did not relate to any civil right. The court dismissed the application with costs, emphasizing that the proceedings for assessment of income tax did not fall under the category of civil proceedings as contemplated under article 133 of the Constitution.
|
