9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (12) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners are a public limited company incorporated in 1954 and are said to be engaged during the relevant time in the manufacture of grinding wheels and abrasives, being the industrial machinery specified in sub-clause (iii) of clause C of Part A of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The petitioners, as they aver, are assessed to income-tax by the First Income-tax Officer, City Circle, for 1960-61 and 1961-62, and in the course of these assessments they claimed that their profits in the manufacture of grinding wheels were exempt from income-tax under section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. This contention, according to the petitioners, was accepted, and exemption granted under that provision. After th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... request regarding exemption contemplated under the Fifth Schedule read with section 99(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not be acceded to. There was a further communication on May 14, 1964, from the Secretary to the Central Board of Direct Taxes to the petitioners to the effect that if the other condition in sub-clause (2) of rule 1 of the Fifth Schedule was not fulfilled, which would disentitle the shareholders to the claim for exemption on that ground alone, the question of the Central Government satisfying itself about the condition in sub-clause (1) of the rule did not arise. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this court for a direction as aforesaid. On the view we take, we think it unnecessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s entrusted by a statute to a named authority and the exercise of it is invoked by a person concerned and there is an improper refusal to exercise the power, then, of course, in such premises, a mandamus may well issue under article 226 of the Constitution directing the authority to exercise the power. But, for doing it, it is a requisite that the applicant must in the first instance approach the authority with a request to invoke the power, and without that there would be no occasion for this court to consider that the authority has refused to exercise or exercised the power improperly, which is vested in it. Admittedly, here, there was no application to the Central Government making such a request. Mr. Venkataraman for the petitioners, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the proper authority for disposal, though they might not be obliged to do so. That would have tended to the convenience of everybody and would have saved a lot of time and perhaps needless expenditure and futile effort. But the point remains that, so long as the, application was not made to the Central Government, we would not be justified in issuing a rule to the Central Government. From what we have said so far, it is obvious that we have not dealt with the merits on which the Central Government would have to be satisfied. The form in which the prayer is couched in the petition presupposes that this court under article 226 of the Constitution will itself have the power to direct the Central Government to issue a certificate. Though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
