1954 (1) TMI 1 - SC - Income Tax

Whether Section 8(5) of the Act is to be regarded as providing the only remedy available to the aggrieved party and that it excludes altogether the remedy provided for under Article 226 of the Constitution? Held that - For purposes of this case it is enough to state that the remedy provided for in Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. So far as the present case is concerned, it has been brought to our notice that the appellants before us have already availed themselves of the remedy provided for in Section 8(5) of the Investigation Commission Act and that a reference has been made to the High Court of Allahabad in terms of that provision which is awaiting decision. In these circumstances, we think that it would not be proper to allow the appellants to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at the present stage, and on this ground alone, we would refuse to interfere with the orders made by the High Court. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Punjab High Court to issue writs of certiorari or prohibition.
2. Availability and exclusivity of the remedy provided under the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 versus Article 226 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Punjab High Court to Issue Writs of Certiorari or Prohibition:

The primary issue was whether the Punjab High Court had jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari or prohibition in the cases involving the appellants, who were assessees in the U.P. State, against the Income-tax Investigation Commission located in Delhi. The High Court dismissed the petitions on the basis that the location of the Investigation Commission in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction upon the Punjab High Court. This decision relied heavily on the precedent set by the Judicial Committee in the case of *Ryots of Garabandho v. Zemindar of Parlakimedi*, which limited the jurisdiction of the High Courts to issue writs to persons within their original civil jurisdiction or to British subjects as defined in the Charter.

However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning improper, stating that the decision in the *Parlakimedi* case was not directly applicable to the question of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that the Constitution introduced a fundamental change by conferring new and wide powers on all High Courts to issue writs, which they did not possess before. These powers are subject to two limitations: (a) the writs must be exercised "throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction," and (b) the person or authority to whom the writs are issued must be within those territories, implying they must be amenable to the Court's jurisdiction either by residence or location.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Punjab High Court's view on jurisdiction could not be sustained, emphasizing that the Constitution's provisions under Article 226 were intended to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and the High Courts were empowered to issue writs to any person or authority within their jurisdiction.

2. Availability and Exclusivity of the Remedy Provided Under the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 Versus Article 226 of the Constitution:

The second issue concerned whether the remedy provided under the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, was exclusive, thereby precluding the appellants from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the Act itself provided a remedy against any wrong or illegal order of the Investigating Commission through Section 8(5), which allows an aggrieved party to apply to the appropriate Commissioner of Income-tax to refer any question of law to the High Court.

The Supreme Court did not express a final opinion on whether Section 8(5) of the Act was the only remedy available, excluding the remedy under Article 226. Instead, it emphasized that the remedy under Article 226 is discretionary, and the High Court can refuse to grant a writ if an adequate or suitable relief is available elsewhere. In this case, the appellants had already availed themselves of the remedy under Section 8(5), and a reference was pending before the High Court of Allahabad. Therefore, the Supreme Court deemed it improper to allow the appellants to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 at that stage.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, noting that if the Income-tax authorities did not refer all matters to the High Court as desired by the appellants, there were remedies provided within the Act, and in case of gross miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court could interfere by way of special leave.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals but made no order as to costs, concluding that the Punjab High Court's decision on jurisdiction was incorrect, but the discretionary remedy under Article 226 was not appropriate given the circumstances.

← Previous Next →