THANGALKUNJU MUSALIAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for a "writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or direction prohibiting the respondents from holding any enquiry into the cases registered as Evasion Cases Nos. 1 and 2 of 1125 on the file of the Income Tax Investigation Commission of Travancore or from holding any investigation into the income of the petitioner from 1939 to the last completed assessment year or for any other period".

(2.) THE first respondent in the "authorised Official and Income Tax Officer on Special Duty, Trivandrum" and the second respondent, "the Income Tax Investigation Commission, by its Secretary, new Delhi. " THE enactment under which the investigation is being made is the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 (Travancore Act, XIV of 1124) and the first notice issued to the petitioner dated 10. 12. 1949 (Ex. A) reads as follows: "notice Whereas the Income Tax Investigation commission having been informed that a substantial portion of your income for 1942 and 1943 has escaped assessment, has ordered investigation into the matter, you are hereby required to produce the following on or before 21. 12. 1949 before the Commission. THE Account Books (Day Books and Ledgers) for the years 1942 and 1943. Kurippu books, invoices, vouchers, bills of lading and customs duty receipts for 1942 and 1943. Bank pass books showing dealing with banks for 1942 and 1943. Stock books for the years 1942 and 1943. (5) Statement of properties purchased by you either in your name or in the names of your relatives or dependents during 1942 and 1943 showing such particulars as acreage, price paid, annual yield, Sirkar tax, etc. (6) Statement of house properties constructed or purchased in 1942 and 1943 showing the cost thereof and municipal valuation. "

(3.) BEFORE dealing with these contentions, however, we would like to dispose of a preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate general that this Court is not competent to entertain the petition in view of the fact that the second respondent is not amenable to its jurisdiction. Under art. 226 (1) of the Constitution the power of the High Court to issue directions, orders or writs is confined to the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction and to persons or authorities, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories and the contention was that as the second respondent functions outside the State of travancore-Cochin and the 1st respondent is a mere subordinate of the second, it is beyond our competence to grant the prayer embodied in the petition.