1962 (3) TMI 129 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether rectification under section 36 of the Mysore Agriculture Income-tax Act is available in cases where the tax liability is compounded under section 64(1).
2. Whether the mistake rectified was apparent on the records or detected through fresh enquiry.
3. Whether the rectification was made within the prescribed period.
4. Whether the petitioner's conduct disentitles him to any relief under article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Whether the levy made on the petitioner was an infringement of his fundamental rights under article 19 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectification under Section 36:
The petitioner argued that rectification under section 36 of the Act is not available when the tax liability is compounded under section 64(1). The court did not delve into this issue in detail, as it found the petitioner's conduct to be a significant factor in denying relief.

2. Mistake Apparent on Records:
The petitioner contended that the mistake rectified was not apparent on the records but was detected through a fresh enquiry. The court did not address this argument substantively, focusing instead on the petitioner's conduct and the broader context of the case.

3. Rectification within Prescribed Period:
The petitioner argued that the rectification was carried out after the prescribed period. Again, the court did not find it necessary to address this issue directly due to the petitioner's conduct.

4. Petitioner's Conduct and Relief under Article 226:
The court emphasized that the petitioner's conduct, which involved deliberate evasion of tax liability, disentitled him to any relief under article 226. The court noted that the petitioner had suppressed facts to evade a substantial portion of his tax liability. The court cited several precedents to support the principle that discretionary relief under article 226 should not be granted to individuals who do not come with clean hands. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, which stated that High Courts should not act as courts of appeal under article 226 and should exercise discretion only in cases of substantial injustice.

5. Infringement of Fundamental Rights under Article 19:
The petitioner claimed that the rectification order resulted in an illegal levy, infringing his fundamental rights under article 19 of the Constitution. The court rejected this argument, stating that the petitioner's liability arose from the provisions of the Act, and the rectification merely quantified this liability. The court distinguished the present case from cases like Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the tax imposition was based on a statute declared ultra vires. The court concluded that the petitioner's contention that he had a right to retain his unlawful gain was not supported by article 19(1)(f) or (g) of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's conduct in evading tax liability disentitled him to any relief under article 226. The court did not find it necessary to address the specific legal contentions raised by the petitioner, as his conduct was a sufficient ground for denying relief. The petition was dismissed with costs, and the advocate's fee was set at Rs. 100.