1954 (10) TMI 10 - SC - Income Tax

Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 31(1) and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution filed Held that - From the facts stated above it is plain that the proceedings taken under the impugned Act XXX of 1947 concluded so far as the Investigation Commission is concerned in September, 1952, more than two years before this petition was presented in this Court. The assessment orders under the Income-tax Act itself were made against the petitioner in November, 1953. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that he is entitled to no relief under the provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 31(1) and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, validity of assessment orders under the Income-tax Act, legality of proceedings before the Income-tax Investigation Commission, violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 20(3) of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 31(1) and 19(1)(f) and challenging the assessment orders made against the petitioner. The petitioner, along with his brothers, was engaged in various businesses and owned extensive properties. Assessment proceedings were initiated against them alleging that they were carrying on business jointly despite claiming a partition. The Central Government referred the case to the Income-tax Investigation Commission, which estimated the escaped income and directed assessment proceedings under various tax laws. Subsequently, assessment orders were passed against the petitioner, leading to the attachment and sale of his properties for tax recovery.

The petitioner alleged that the attachment and sale of his properties violated his fundamental rights under the Constitution. It was also contended that the proceedings before the Investigation Commission and the references made by the Central Government were illegal and discriminatory. The petitioner sought relief through writs of mandamus and certiorari to quash the assessment orders and restrain interference with his properties. However, the Court noted that the proceedings under the impugned Act had concluded before the petition was filed, rendering the relief under Article 32 unavailable. Citing precedent, the Court held that Article 31 is not concerned with tax imposition or collection, and therefore, relief under Article 32 was not maintainable in this case.

The Court emphasized that the petition was not justiciable in the circumstances presented and that it would not be appropriate to issue the requested writs. The petitioner's counsel conceded to this position, leading to the dismissal of the petition with costs. The Court found that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under Article 32 and held that the petition was bound to fail based on the legal principles and precedents discussed in the judgment.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the inapplicability of Article 32 in the given situation and the lack of grounds for granting the requested relief.