9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (1) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estate for the year 1962-63, and holding after objection that the estate was assessable. I may notice-only to reject--the preliminary objection raised by the counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition. The Cochin Proclamation 9 of 1124 vested the management of the V.T.K. Estate, and the Palace Fund in the Palace Administration Board. Exhibit P-2 notice was issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner as the manager of the estate. He replied thereto by exhibit P-3 objection. The same was overruled by exhibit P-4 communication addressed to the petitioner and a return of income was insisted upon. The provisions of the Proclamation 9 of 1124, no less than the conduct of the 1st respondent in dealing with the petitioners as a representative of the estate are sufficient to clothe the petitioner with locus standi to maintain this writ petition (vide Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P.). The V.T.K. Estate has now been partitioned under the provisions of the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilakam Estate, and the Palace Fund (Partition) Act, 1961, and a document of partition has been executed on June 24, 1963. The period to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Business, (v) Professional earnings, and (vi) Other sources. Section 4(3)(ix) of the Act provided that the Act was not applicable to agricultural income. Section 59 empowered Government by notification in the Gazette to make an exemption in respect of income-tax in favour of any class of income or in regard to the whole or any part of the income of any class of persons. It was in pursuance of this power that exhibit P-1 notification was issued. The Cochin Income-tax Act, 1108 was repealed by the section 2 of the Cochin Income-tax Act VI of 1117, which was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to income-tax and super-tax. Section 9 of the 1117 Act provided for the heads of the income chargeable to income-tax. The six heads of income under section 6 of the 1108 Act were comprised under five heads. Section 5(3)(viii) of the 1117 Act excluded from taxation, agricultural income. Section 103(1) empowered the Government to grant exemption. The Cochin Act of 1117 was amended by the Cochin Act 22 of 1122. It was only an amending and not a repealing and re-enacting statute. Section 4 of the Amending Act, inter alia, deleted the exclusion of agricultural income, enacted by sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of 1079. Section 22 of the said Act provided : " 22. Where any Act is after the commencement of this Act, repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any (appointment, notification) order, scheme, rule, form or by-law (made or) issued under the repealed Act shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been (made or) issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any (appointment, notification) order, scheme, rule, form or by-law (made or) issued under the provisions so re-enacted. " As a result of this provision, the exhibit P-1 notification continued in force, and is deemed to have been issued under the 1117 Act. So far, there was no controversy. By the Amending Act of 1122, agricultural income-tax was for the first time introduced in the State of Cochin : and, unlike what was done in the Travancore and Malabar areas of this State, this was not by the provisions of any special statute, but by amendments carried out to the Cochin Income-tax Act. According to the counsel for the respondents, the provisions of section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from all taxes and assessments whatsoever". By section 169 of 11 and 12 Victoria -Chapter CLXIII (The City of London Sewers Act, 1848), it was provided that certain rates for the purpose of the Act shall be made on every occupier of house or building in the city, " whether such person shall be now liable in respect or such house or building to be assessed to the relief of the poor in respect thereof by reason of such house or buildings being situate in any precinct or extra parochial place or otherwise. " The question was whether the provisions of the latter statute could operate in view of the exemption contained in the former. In the Divisional Court, Grantham J. and Channell J. noted that the case was one of considerable difficulty and held that the provisions of the latter Act did away with the exemption, and that the exemption was over-ridden by the provisions of the latter statute. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reported in [1901] 1 K. B. 617. The Court of Appeal consisting of A.L. Smith M. R., Collins L.J. and Romer L.J. dismissed the appeal. They felt bound by certain authorities to hold that the exemption in the earlier statute was only from taxes and assessments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocal taxes and assessments, whether then existing or, thereafter to be imposed. Lord Haldane noticed that the legislature could, by a subsequent Act have repealed or altered the exemption. It was pointed out that the decision in the Sion College case proceeded on a misapprehension of the authorities by which the Court of Appeal felt itself bound. It would thus be seen that both the limbs of reasoning on which the decision in the Sion College case was sustained by the Divisional Court and by the Court of Appeal were overruled by the House of Lords in the decisions noticed supra (Mayor &c. of London v. Netherlands Steamboat Co. and Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Corporation of the City of London ). The Sion College case, which was relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, can no longer be regarded as good law either regarding the scope of the exemption or its subsequent repeal. A clear and concise exposition of this aspect of the law is to be found in Craies' Interpretation of Statutes at pages 585 to 587. In re Winget Ltd. it was ruled by Russell J. adverting to the second Associated Newspapers case, that the word "whatsoever" which occurred in the provisions of the earlier ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
