STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAJA SYED MOHAMMAD SAADAT ALI KHAN IN C A NO 306 OF 57 :RAJA BIRENDRA BIKRAM SINGH IN C A NO 307 OF 57 :HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA SUKHJIT SINGH IN C A NO 308 OF 57
LAWS(SC)-1960-7-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on July 28,1960

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
RAJA SYED MOHAMMAD SAADAT ALI KHAN,RAJA BIRENDRA BIKRAM SINGH,HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA SUKHJIT SINGH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

P KRISHNA RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-1976-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA RAO P VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(APH)-1976-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
BRAHM SINGH VS. BOARD OF RENUE [LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-87] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ARMAN ALI MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-1985-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
BHAIYA RAMANUJ PRATAP DEO VS. LALU MAHESHANUJ PRATAP DEO [LAWS(PAT)-1968-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
KASHI RAM VS. RAJ KUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. P N KRISHNAKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2001-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JAYAPRAKASH [LAWS(KER)-2006-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DEVESH SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-243] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA RAM VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-438] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA LAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/COLLECTOR AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-440] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ABDUL KHALEQUE OSTAGAR & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1985-4-48] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Shah, J. - (1.)Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1957:Raja Syed Mohammad Saadat Ali Khan who will hereinafter be referred to as "the assessee", is the owner of Taluqa Nanpura in district Bahraich and Taluqa Mohammadi in district Kheri, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The legislature of the United Provinces enacted the United Provinces Agricultural Income- Tax Act, III of 1949, authorising imposition of a tax on agricultural income within the State. By S. 3 of the Act, the liability to pay agricultural income-tax and super-tax at rates specified in the schedule therein was charged on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person. By S. 14, the Collector and the Assistant Collector were for the purposes of the Act declared to be the assessing authorities within their respective revenue jurisdictions. As originally enacted, by S. 2 (4), the expression "Collector" was to have the same meaning as in the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901. By S. 44, the Provincial Government was empowered to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, and in particular, amongst others.
"to prescribe the authority by whom and the place at which assessment shall be made in the case of assessee having agricultural income in the jurisdiction of more than one assessing authority".
By R. 18, Cl. 1(a) framed by the Government, in exercise of the powers under S. 44, it was provided, in so far as it is material, that subject to sub-S. 2 of S. 14, an assessee shall ordinarily be assessed by ......the Collector of the district in which he permanently resides.
(2.)The State Government of Uttar Pradesh (the former United Provinces) by Notification dated June 8, 1953, appointed one K. C. Chaudhry under sub-s. 1 of S. 14(A) of the U. P. Land Revenue Act III of 1901 to be the Additional Collector in district Bahraich and authorised him to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of a Collector "in all classes of cases." Claiming to exercise the authority of the Collector under S. 14 of Act III of 1949, the Additional Collector by order dated February 25, 1954, assessed the assessee's net agricultural income at Rs. 2,81,110-10-3 and ordered him to pay Rs. 1,36,390-2-0 as agricultural income-tax and super-tax.
(3.)The validity of this order was challenged by the assessee by an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution presented before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The contention of the assessee that the Additional Collector of Bahriach was not an authority competent by law to assess the agricultural income-tax under Act III of 1949 was upheld by the High Court. The High Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Additional Collector, because in its opinion, where property of an assessee is situated in several districts, the Collector as the assessing authority under Act III of 1949 exercises "extra-territorial" jurisdiction, but as K. C. Chaudhry, the Additional Collector was not invested with that extra-territorial jurisdiction, the impugned proceeding assessing agricultural income-tax was unauthorised. The State of Uttar Pradesh obtained from the High Court leave to appeal to this Court against the order quashing the assessment.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.