RAJAH S V JAGANNATH RAO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THE appellant, Rajah S. V. Jagannath Rao, was the Jagirdar of Jatprole Samasthan in the former Hyderabad State. In the year 1357 Fasli, the Income-tax Act (1357 Fasli) was passed by the Legislature, to come into force on Azur 1, 1357 Fasli. THE present appeals, with special leave, concern the assessment of the appellant's income to income-tax and super-tax under the Act of 1357 Fasli for the assessment years, 1357 Fasli and 1358 Fasli, corresponding to the-years, 1948-49 and 1949-50. THEy are directed against a common judgment of the High court of Hyderabad, by which certain questions of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate tribunal, Bombay, in the assessment of the present appellant and some others, were answered by the High court of Hyderabad against the present appellant.

(3.) THERE have been a number of rulings of this court on the powers of Rulers of Indian States to promulgate laws in their States in the exercise of their sovereignty and on the nature of their sovereignty. Two such cases of this court Considered the legislative powers of His Exalted Highness the Nizam, and in those cases, it was held that the legislative power of the Nizam was not subject to any limitations or control of any kind whatever. The first of these cases, Ameer-un-Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum (1) dealt with a Firman issued by His Exalted Highness the Nizam, and. in dealing with his powers, in general and his legislative powers, in particular, it was observed by this court as follow: 'It cannot be disputed that prior to the integration of Hyderabad State with the Indian Union and the coming into force of the Indian Constitution, the Nizam of Hyderabad enjoyed uncontrolled sovereign powers. He was the supreme legislature, the supreme judiciary and the supreme head of the executive, and there were no constitutional limitations upon his authority to act in any of these capacities. The 'Firmans' were expressions of the sovereign will of the Nizam and they were binding in the same way as any other law;-nay, they would override all other laws which were in conflict with them. So long as a particular 'Firman' held the field, that alone would govern or regulate the rights of the parties concerned though it could be annulled or modified by a later 'Firman' at any time that the Nizam willed.' The same view was reaffirmed in the second case reported in Director of Endowments, government of Hyderabad v. Akram Ali (1).