9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (12) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. By virtue of the said declaration of May 14, 1954, the incomes from the said three palaces were exempted from income-tax and super-tax and were not includible in the total income or the total world income of the then Ruler of Mysore. By the deletion purported in the notification of September 8, 1971, the palace of Mysore ceased to be recognised as official residence of the former Ruler and consequently income therefrom became exigible to income-tax and super-tax. This deletion is challenged in this writ petition. Prior to the commencement of the Constitution of India, the petitioner was the Ruler of the then State of Mysore and after the commencement of the Constitution, Mysore became a Part B State in the Union of India. The Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the " 1922 Act"), was extended to the then Part B State of Mysore with effect from 1st April, 1950. Thereafter, s. 60A empowering the Central Govt., to grant exemptions, if it considered it necessary or expedient so to do for avoiding any hardship or anomaly or removing any difficulty arising as result of the extension of the 1922 Act, inter alia, to Part B States, was introduced in the 1922 Act. Pursuan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated to be that a part of the palace at Mysore had been let out by the former Ruler to earn rents, and that, therefore, the Central Govt. considered it expedient to withdraw the recognition as the official residence respecting the palace at Mysore. We have heard Sri M. R. Lakshmikantharaje Urs, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. R. Rajasekharamurthy for the revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention that annex. D is bad in and without the authority of law, has urged the following grounds: (a) that there is no power vested in the Central Govt. to issue the impugned notification at annex. D, inasmuch as, while after the repeal of the 1922 Act, by s. 297 of the 1961 Act the operation of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, was expressly continued by virtue of cl. (1) of s. 297(2) of the 1961 Act, the power to rescind or amend such notification under the 1961 Act was, however, not preserved and that it was only on September 9, 1972, long subsequent to the date of the impugned notification, a proviso expressly enabling such rescission was introduced in the 1961 Act; (b) that the Central Govt. having itself induced t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the income of any person or class of persons : Provided that the power conferred by this section shall not be exercisable in the case of merged territories and the territories which immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir, after the 31st day of March, 1955, and, in the case of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Chandernagore, after the 31st day of March, 1959, except for the purpose of rescinding an exemption, reduction or modification already made." Clause (1) of s. 297(2) of the 1961 Act reads: "(1) any notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 60 or section 60A of the repealed Act and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, to the extent to which provision has not been made under this Act, continue in force until rescinded by the Central Government. " (Underlining supplied) With effect from September 9, 1972, pursuant to the Rulers of Indian States (Abolition of Privileges) Act, 1972, the expression " until rescinded by the Central Government was omitted and the following proviso introduced : " Provided that the Central Government may rescind any such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatutory order made under s. 60A of the 1922 Act, the Central Govt. having considered it necessary and expedient so to do for the purpose of avoiding hardship to the Rulers of the former Indian States, any notification withdrawing any such concession should be preceded by the formation of opinion on the part of the Central Govt. that on the same considerations of avoidance of hardship it was no longer necessary to continue the concession. Formation of such an opinion, it is urged, is not shown to have preceded the issue of the impugned notification. Support for this argument was sought to be drawn from the language of s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, where it provides that the power to rescind or amend is exercisable " in like manner " and subjects that power " to like conditions ". The conditions referred to in s. 21 subject to which the power to rescind could be exercised are the conditions to which the order issued under the main Act must be made subject; and do not contemplate those conditions upon the fulfilment of which the right to issue an order arises under the main Act. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is in pari materia with s. 32(3) of the Interpretation Act, 1889 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quoted with approval at para. 37 of AIR 1973 SC 2641-[N. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala]. The circumstances pleaded by the petitioner in support of the plea of estoppel, in our opinion, are not sufficient either on facts or in law to sustain it. Accordingly, point (b) is also held against the petitioner. Re: Point (c): The last contention urged by Sri Urs is that in issuing the impugned notification at annex. D, the petitioner has been, singled out for a hostile discrimination in view of the alleged circumstance that in the cases of Rulers of other former Indian States no withdrawals of exemptions have been made under similar circumstances. The averments in the petition in support of this plea are as follows : ".. ...... In fact, to the best of my information, most of the Rulers have let out certain portions which constitute annexes to their palaces to local authorities to the Central Government and others. In fact, on the day when the Taxation Concessions Order came into being, and also subsequently, most Rulers have let out portions of their palaces to others. With reference to them, there has been no withdrawal of exemption and it is only in my case that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
