1954 (10) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ured and that he is not bound thereby he cannot complain that any of his fundamental rights has been contravened for which he can claim relief under Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 of the Constitution is not intended for relief against the voluntary actions of a person. His remedy, if any, lies in other appropriate proceedings. Appeal dismissed.
Judge(s) : GHULAM HASAN., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN., N. H. BHAGWATI., S. R. DAS., T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, C. J.--The petitioner in this matter is a resident of Akola in the State of Madhya Pradesh and carries on business in various lines, i.e., oil mills, banking, money lending, etc. It is alleged that during the w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... July, 1951, and till the 10th April, 1954, the petitioner paid a total sum of about Rs. 14,00,000 towards discharge of the liability voluntarily agreed to by him on account of the tax evaded. A sum of Rs. 4,50,000 still remains due and is payable in instalments up to the 25th of March, 1955. By one of the terms of the settlement the petitioner undertook not to transfer, mortgage, charge or alienate or encumber in any manner whatsoever any of his movable or immovable, properties, barring stock-in-trade of the business, except with the permission of the Commissioner of Income-tax and except for the purpose of the payment of the tax due under the settlement. In June 1954, after the decision by this Court of Suraj Mal Mohta's case, the petit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner. It was further prayed that a direction be issued for restoration to the petitioner of a sum of Rs. 13,99,715-10-6 with interest at 6 per cent., and that the respondents be further restrained from taking any action against the petitioner for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 4,50,000 with interest. In our judgment this petition is wholly misconceived. Whatever tax the petitioner has already paid, or whatever is still recoverable from him, is being recovered on the basis of the settlement proposed by him and accepted by the Central Government. Because of his request for a settlement no assessment was made against him by following the whole of the procedure of the Income-tax Act In this situation unless and until the petitioner can establi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X