{"id":15826,"date":"1989-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989"},"modified":"2016-09-13T12:25:55","modified_gmt":"2016-09-13T06:55:55","slug":"elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989","title":{"rendered":"Elel Hotels And Investments … vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Elel Hotels And Investments … vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 1664, \t\t 1989 SCR (2) 880<\/div>\n
Author: M Venkatachalliah<\/div>\n
Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj), Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J), Natrajan, S. (J), Venkatachalliah, M.N. (J), Rangnathan, S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nELEL HOTELS AND INVESTMENTS LIMITEDAND ANR. ETC. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/05\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR 1664\t\t  1989 SCR  (2) 880\n 1989 SCC  (3) 698\t  JT 1989  Supl.    195\n 1989 SCALE  (1)1194\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1992 SC 999\t (12,13)\n\n\nACT:\n      Constitution   of\t  India,   1950:   Articles   14   and\n19(1)(g)--Hotel Receipts Act, 1980---Whether violative of.\n    Articles  246,  248 and 254 & Schedule  VII--Entries  in\nlegislative  list--Whether  to be construed in\ta  wide\t and\ncomprehensive connotation.\n    Hotel Receipts Act,\t 1980: Sections 3, 5 and 6--Legisla-\ntive competence--Whether falls under Entry 82, List 1.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t Hotel\tReceipts Tax Act, 1980 came  into  force  on\n9.12.1980. The Act imposed a special tax of 15% on the gross\nreceipts  of  certain  hotels, where the  room\tcharges\t for\nresidential accommodation provided to any person during\t the\nprevious year were Rs.75 or more per day per individual. The\nlevy  commenced\t from the assessment year  1981-82  but\t was\ndiscontinued  from 27.2.1982. Charges received from  persons\nwithin the purview of certain Vienna Conventions were exempt\nfrom the tax.\n    The\t constitutional validity of the said Act  was  chal-\nlenged in these writ petitions, on grounds of lack of legis-\nlative\tcompetence  and\t of violation  of  Articles  14\t and\n19(1)(g).\n    It\twas contended on behalf of the petitioners that\t the\nreliance  on  Entry  82, List I in support of  the  tax\t was\nwholly misconceived and the tax in pith and substance was an\nimpost\tunder Entry 62, List II reserved to the\t States.  It\nwas  also  contended that the Act is patently  violative  of\nArticle\t 14 since the basis of classification has  no  nexus\nwith the object of the tax, in that other hotels which\thave\nmuch higher gross receipts are left out. It was contended by\nthe petitioners that the law imposed unreasonable burden  on\ntheir  freedom\tof business and constituted a  violation  of\nArticle 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.\n881\n    On\tbehalf of the Respondent it was contended  that\t the\nsaid tax fails under Entry 82, List I and the word  'income'\nshould not be read in a narrow and pedantic sense, but\tmust\nbe  given its widest amplitude. The challenge to the Act  on\nthe  ground  that  it  was  violative  of  Articles  14\t and\n19(1)(g), was also resisted by the Respondent.\nDismissing the writ petitions,\n    HELD:  1.1. The word 'income' is of elastic\t import.  In\ninterpreting  expressions  in the legislative lists  a\tvery\n'wide meaning should be given to the entries. In understand-\ning  the scope and amplitude of the expression\t'income'  in\nEntry 82, List 1, any meaning which fails to accord with the\nplenitude  of the concept of 'income' in all its  width\t and\ncomprehensiveness  should be avoided. The cardinal  rule  of\ninterpretation is that the entries in the legislative  lists\nare not to be read in a narrow or restricted sense and\tthat\neach general word should be held to extend to all  ancillary\nor  subsidiary\tmatters which can fairly and  reasonably  be\nsaid to be comprehended in it. The widest possible construc-\ntion, according to the ordinary meaning of the words in\t the\nentry,\tmust  be  put upon them.  Reference  to\t legislative\npractice  maybe\t admissible in reconciling  two\t conflicting\nprovisions  in\trival legislative lists. In  construing\t the\nwords  in  a constitutional document  confering\t legislative\npower  the most liberal construction should be put upon\t the\nwords  so  that\t the same may have effect  in  their  widest\namplitude.\n    1.2. The expression 'income' in Entry 82, List I, cannot\nbe subjected, by implication, to any restriction by the\t way\nin  which  that term might have been deployed  in  a  fiscal\nstatute. A particular statute enacted under the Entry might,\nas  a matter of fiscal policy, seek to tax some\t species  of\nincome\talone. The definitions would, therefore, be  limited\nby the consideration of fiscal policy of a particular  stat-\nute.  But the expression 'income' in the  legislative  entry\nhas  always  been  understood in a  wide  and  comprehensive\nconnotation  to embrace within it every kind of\t receipt  or\ngain either of a capital nature or of a revenue nature.\t The\n'taxable-receipts' as defined in the statute cannot be\theld\nto  fail outside such a 'wider connotation' of\t'income'  in\nthe  wider constitutional meaning and sense of the  term  as\nunderstood in Entry 82, List I.\n    Navinchandra Mafatlal v. CIT, Bombay City,<\/a> [1955] 1\t SCR\n829  and  Bhagwandas Jain v. Union of India, AIR<\/a>  1981\tS.C.\n907, relied on.\n    Navnitlal v. K.K. Sen, [1965] 1 SCR 909; Governor-Gener-\nal  in\tCouncil v. Province of Madras, [1945]  FCR  179\t and\nKamakshya\n882\nNarain Singh v. CIT, 1 ITR 513 (PC), referred to.\n    2.1. It is now well settled that a very wide latitude is\navailable to the legislature in the matter of classification\nof  objects, for purposes of taxation. It must needs  to  be\nso, having regard to the complexities involved in the formu-\nlation\tof  a taxation policy. Taxation is not\tnow  a\tmere\nsource of raising money to defray expenses of Government. It\nis  a  recognised fiscal-tool to achieve fiscal\t and  social\nobjectives.  The differentia of\t classification\t presupposes\nand proceeds on the premise that it distinguishes and  keeps\napart  as  a  distinct class hotels,  with  higher  economic\nstatus\treflected  in one of the indicia  of  such  economic\nsuperiority.  The presumption of constitutionality  has\t not\nbeen dislodged by the petitioners by demonstrating how\teven\nhotels,\t not  brought  into the class, have  also  equal  or\nhigher chargeable-receipts and how the assumption of econom-\nic  superiority\t of hotels to which the Act  is\t applied  is\nerroneous or irrelevant.\n    2.2.  As  regards reasonableness of\t classification\t and\nrestriction  on the petitioners' freedom of trade and  busi-\nness,  similar contentions were raised in a connected  case.\nAs  has\t been held in that case and for\t the  reasons  given\ntherein,  the challenge to constitutionality of\t the  provi-\nsions  of  the\tAct, based on Articles 14  and\t19(1)(g)  is\nrejected.\n    Federation\tof Hotel & Restaurant Association  of  India\netc. v. Union of India, [1989] 2 SCR 918, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 254 to 261 of
\n1981.\n<\/p>\n
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
\n    N.A.  Palkhiwala, Soli J. Sorabjee,\t T.R.  Andhyarujina,
\nH.P.  Ranina, S. Ganesh, J.B. Dadachanji,  Ravinder  Narain,
\nMrs.  A.K.  Verma, D.N. Misra, S. Sukumaran,  Lira  Goswami,
\nJoel  Pares,  Ms. Rubia Anand, R.F.  Nariman,  P.H.  Parekh,
\nSanjay\tBhartari,  M.K.S, Menon, R.K.  Dhillon,\t Ms.  Rohini
\nChhabra,  Sunita Sharma, Ms. Ayesha Misra, A. Subba Rao,  S.
\nBalakrishnan,  Harish  N.  Salve,  S.S.\t Shroff,  Mrs.\tP.S.
\nShroff,\t Ms. Malvika Rajkotia, B. Parthasarthi, Vijay  Kumar
\nVerma, Mukul Mudgal, Suresh Verma, Praveen Kumar and  Vishnu
\nMathur for the Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
K. Parasaran, B. Datta, V. Jaganatha Rao, K. Sudhakaran, Dr.
\n883<\/span>
\nV.  Gauri Shankar, S.K. Dholakia, P.S. Poti, G.A. Shah,\t Ms.
\nA.  Subhashini,\t B.B. Ahuja, H.K. Puri, A. Subba  Rao,\tK.R.
\nNambiar, A.S. Bhasme and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    VENKATACHALIAH, J. In this batch of writ petitions under
\nArticle 32 of the Constitution of India petitioners who\t are
\nhoteliers challenge on grounds of lack of legislative compe-
\ntence  and  of\tviolation of Articles 14  and  19(1)(g)\t the
\nconstitutional validity of the Hotel Receipts Tax Act,\t1980
\n(‘Act’\tfor short) which imposes a special tax on the  gross
\nreceipts of certain cetegory of hotels. Section 3 of the Act
\nlimits\tthe application of the ‘Act’ to those  hotels  where
\nthe “roomcharges” for residential accommodation provided  to
\nany  person during the previous year are Rs.75 or  more\t per
\nday  per individual. If a hotel is within this class,  then,
\nSection 5 brings to charge the Hotel’s ‘chargeable-receipts’
\nas defined under Sec. 6 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Act was passed on 4.12.1980 and came into force  on
\n9.12.1980  when it received the assent of the  President  of
\nIndia.\tThe levy under the ‘Act’ commences from the  assess-
\nment-year 1981-82 and brings to tax the chargeable  receipts
\nof  the\t corresponding previous year. The rate of tax  is  a
\nflat rate of 15 per cent of the “chargeablereceipts” defined
\nin  sec. 6 as the total amount of all charges,\tby  whatever
\nname  called,  received\t by or accruing or  arising  to\t the
\nassessee in the previous-year in connection with the  provi-
\nsion  of  residential accommodation, food, drink  and  other
\nservices  in  the course of carrying on the  business  of  a
\nhotel. But such charges received from persons within purview
\nof  Vienna  Convention\ton Diplomatic  Relations,  1961,  or
\nVienna Convention on Consular Relations are exempt from\t the
\ntax.  The machinery under the Income-tax Act, 1961,  is\t en-
\ngrafted\t for purposes of assessment, levy and collection  of
\ntax under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis, however, relevant to note that though the  ‘Act’
\nis  put into force from the Asst. Year 1981-82 the levy\t was
\ndiscontinued from 27.2.1982.\n<\/p>\n
    2.\tThis batch of writ petitions were heard\t along\twith
\nWrit Petition 1395 of 1987 and the connected writ  petitions
\nin which the constitutional validity of the Expenditure\t Tax
\nAct, 1987, was challenged on substantially similar  grounds.
\nIn  the present ‘Act’ the levy is  on  ‘Chargeable-Receipts’
\nwhile  in the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987, it is\ton  “Charge-
\nable-Expenditure”  which represents substantially  the\tsame
\nitems  as  to  constitute  ‘Chargeable-Receipts’  under\t the
\npresent\t ‘Act’.\t We have disposed WP 1395 of  1987  and\t the
\nconnected matters by a separate Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
884<\/span><\/p>\n
    3.\tSections  3, 5, 6 of the Act have a bearing  on\t the
\napplication  of\t the  contentions urged in  support  of\t the
\nchallenge  to  the constitutionality of the Act.  Section  3
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3.(1)  Subject to the provisions of  sub-sec-
\n\t      tion  (2) and subsection (3), this  Act  shall
\n\t      apply  in relation to every hotel wherein\t the
\n\t      room  charges  for  residential  accommodation
\n\t      provided to any person at any time during\t the
\n\t      previous year are seventy-five rupees or\tmore
\n\t      per day per individual.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       Explanation.–Where the room  charges
\n\t      are  payable otherwise than on daily basis  or
\n\t      per individual, then the room charges shall be
\n\t      computed as for a day and per individual based
\n\t      on the period of occupation of the residential
\n\t      accommodation  for which the charges are\tpay-
\n\t      able and the number of individuals  ordinarily
\n\t      permitted to occupy such accommodation accord-
\n\t      ing to the rules and custom of the hotel.
\n\t\t       (2)  Where  a  composite\t charge\t  is
\n\t      payable  in respect of residential  accommoda-
\n\t      tion  and\t food,\tthe  room  charges  included
\n\t      therein shall be determined in the  prescribed
\n\t      manner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3) Where–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (i) a composite charge is payable  in
\n\t      respect  of residential  accommodation,  food,
\n\t      drink and other services, or any of them,\t and
\n\t      the  case is not covered by the provisions  of
\n\t      sub-section (2); or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (ii)  it\t appears to  the  Income-tax
\n\t      Officer  that  the  charges  for\t residential
\n\t      accommodation,  food, drink or other  services
\n\t      are  so  arranged that the  room\tcharges\t are
\n\t      understated  and the other charges  are  over-
\n\t      stated,
\n\t      the Income-tax Officer shall, for the purposes
\n\t      of subsection (1), determine the room  charges
\n\t      on such reasonable basis as he may deem fit.”
\n\t      Section 5(1) provides:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “5.(1) Subject to the provisions of this\tAct,
\n\t      there shall be
\n\t      885<\/span>
\n\t       charged\ton  every  person  carrying  on\t the
\n\t      business of a hotel in relation to which\tthis
\n\t      Act  applies, for every assessment  year\tcom-
\n\t      mencing on or after the 1st day of April,\t 198
\n\t      1, a tax in respect of his chargeable receipts
\n\t      of  the previous year at the rate\t of  fifteen
\n\t      per cent of such receipts:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided\tthat Where such chargeable  receipts
\n\t      include  any charges received in\tforeign\t ex-
\n\t      change, then, the tax payable by the  assessee
\n\t      shall  be reduced by an amount equal  to\tfive
\n\t      per  cent\t of the charges\t (exclusive  of\t the
\n\t      amounts  payable by way of sales\ttax,  enter-
\n\t      tainment\ttax,  tax on luxuries or  tax  under
\n\t      this Act) so received in foreign exchange.”
\n\t      Explanation–omitted as unnecessary
\n\t      Section  5(2)–omitted as\t unnecessary  except
\n\t      explanation (ii)
\n\t      Explanation (ii) to Section 5(2) provides:
\n\t      “any  food, drink or other services  shall  be
\n\t      deemed  to have been provided on the  premises
\n\t      of  a hotel if the same is or are provided  in
\n\t      the hotel or any place appurtenant thereto and
\n\t      where the hotel is situate in a part of build-
\n\t      ing, in any other part of the building.”
\n\t      Section 6 provides:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “6(1)  Subject to the provisions of this\tAct,
\n\t      the  chargeable receipts of any previous\tyear
\n\t      of  an assessee shall be the total  amount  of
\n\t      all charges, by whatever name called, received
\n\t      by, or accruing or arising to, the assessee in
\n\t      connection  with the provision of\t residential
\n\t      accommodation, food, drink and other  services
\n\t      or  any of them (including such  charges\tfrom
\n\t      persons not provided with such  accommodation)
\n\t      in the course of carrying on the business of a
\n\t      hotel to which this Act applies and shall also
\n\t      include every amount collected by the assessee
\n\t      by  way  of  tax under this  Act,\t sales\ttax,
\n\t      entertainment tax and tax on luxuries.”
\n\t\t       (2) For the removal of doubts, it  is
\n\t      hereby  declared that where any  such  charges
\n\t      have been included in the chargeable  receipts
\n\t      of  any previous year as charges\taccuring  or
\n\t      arising  to the assessee during that  previous
\n\t      year,
\n\t      886<\/span>
\n\t      such  charges  shall not be  included  in\t the
\n\t      chargeable receipts of any subsequent previous
\n\t      year in which they are received by the  asses-
\n\t      see.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  Other provisions are machinery-provisions,
\n\t      providing for the mode of assessment: levy and
\n\t      collection  of the tax; for appeals;  for\t of-
\n\t      fences:\tpenalties;  punishments,  etc.\t The
\n\t      challenge\t to the ‘Act’ is, in the main,\tlack
\n\t      of  legislative competence on the part of\t the
\n\t      Union    Parliament   to\t enact\t the\tlaw.
\n\t      Respondent-union seeks to support the legisla-
\n\t      tion  under  and as referable to Entry  82  of
\n\t      List 1 i.e., Taxes on Income. The\t contentions
\n\t      raised in support of the petitions are these:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(a) That in pith and substance,\t the
\n\t      law is one imposing a tax on luxuries provided
\n\t      in Hotels and therefore, the law is one  under
\n\t      Entry  62, List I of the 7th Schedule  to\t the
\n\t      Constitution and outside the Union power;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(b) That, at all events, the Act  is
\n\t      patently\tviolative of Article 14 in that\t the
\n\t      basis  of\t classification\t of  hotels  on\t the
\n\t      dividing\tline  of  room\tcharges,  though  in
\n\t      itself  an intelligible one, has, however,  no
\n\t      nexus,  let alone any rational nexus with\t the
\n\t      object  of  the law viz., to impose a  tax  on
\n\t      income;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\tWhile  hotels  which  collect\troom
\n\t      charges  of Rs.75 per day from any  individual
\n\t      in the previous year fail within the tax\tnet,
\n\t      other  hotels  which have much  higher  gross-
\n\t      receipts are left out. The classification does
\n\t      not include all persons who, from the point of
\n\t      view of the objects of the Act, are  similarly
\n\t      situated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(c) That the law imposes  unreasona-
\n\t      ble  burden  on the  petitioners’\t freedom  of
\n\t      business and constitutes a violation of  Arti-
\n\t      cle 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       4. Re: Contention (a):<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Shri  Palkhivala contended that the impugned  law  which
\nseeks  to  impose a tax on what\t is  styled  ‘Chargeable-re-
\nceipts’\t which includes payments for residential  accommoda-
\ntion, food, drink and other services at petitioners’  hotels
\nreally\tbrings to tax “luxuries”–an impost under Entry\t 62,
\nList  I, reserved to the States. Learned  counsel  submitted
\nthat the reliance by the Respondents on Entry 82, List I, to
\nsupport the impost as a tax on income is wholly misconceived
\n887<\/span>
\ninasmuch  as, the concepts of “income” and “tax\t on  income”
\nhave  definite\tlegal connotations crystallised\t by  settled
\nlegislative-practice  and do not admit\tof  “gross-receipts”
\nbeing treated as “income” for purposes of levy of tax  under
\nEntry 82, List I. Learned counsel submitted that neither the
\nnomenclature  given to the tax nor the standard by which  it
\nis  measured can determine its true nature and the  legisla-
\nture  cannot  enlarge its power by choosing  an\t appropriate
\nname to the tax.\n<\/p>\n
    To\tshow  the essential characteristics of what  is\t the
\nconcept\t of  ‘income’ learned counsel  referred\t to  certain
\nobservations  of the Supreme Court of the United  Stated  of
\nAmerica:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “…  it\tbecomes\t essential  to\t distinguish
\n\t      between  what is and what is not\t“income”  as
\n\t      the  term\t is  there used; and  to  apply\t the
\n\t      distinction,  as\tcases  arise,  according  to
\n\t      truth  and substance, without regard to  form.
\n\t      Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt
\n\t      conclude the matter, since it cannot by legis-
\n\t      lation  alter  the  Constitution,\t from  which
\n\t      alone  it derives its power to legislate,\t and
\n\t      within whose limitations alone that power\t can
\n\t      be lawfully exercised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       The fundamental relation of “capital”
\n\t      to “income” has been much discussed by  econo-
\n\t      mists, the former being likened to the tree or
\n\t      the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop;
\n\t      the  former depicted as a\t reservoir  supplied
\n\t      from springs, the latter as the outlet stream,
\n\t      to be measured by its flow during a period  of
\n\t      time.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      [See:  Eisner v. Macomber, 64 Law Ed.  521  at
\n\t      528]
\n\t\t  Learned  counsel  also  relied  upon\t the
\n\t      following\t observations of Gajendragadkar,  J.
\n\t      in  Navnitlal v. K.K.Sen, [1965] 1 SCR 909  at
\n\t      915<\/span>
\n\t      “This   doctrine\tdoes  not,   however,\tmean
\n\t      that  …..  ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ”\t  Parliament can choose to tax as income  an
\n\t      item which in no rational sense can be regard-
\n\t      ed  as  a\t citizen’s income.  The\t item  taxed
\n\t      should rationally be capable of being  consid-
\n\t      ered as the income of a citizen  …..  “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Learned counsel submitted that the grosS-receipts of  a
\nhotel  received from a customer towards room charges,  food,
\ndrink  and other services provided at the hotel cannot\tcon-
\nstitute ‘income’ known as
\n888<\/span>
\nsuch  to  law. The submission, in substance  are  two  fold:
\nfirst  that while the “Chargeable-Receipts” as conceived  in
\nthe  “Act”  do\tnot constitute ‘income’\t for  purposes,\t and
\nwithin\tthe  meaning  of Entry 82 list I,  as  the  receipts
\ncannot\trationally  be related to the concept  of  ‘income’;
\nand,  secondly, that in pith and substance the levy  is\t one
\nunder  Entry  62 list I within the  States’  power.  Learned
\ncounsel inviting attention to the following observations  of
\nLord Salmond’s in Governor-General in Council v. Province of
\nMadras, [1945] FCR 179at 191
\n\t      ”\t  …..\t Their Lordships do not\t doubt\tthat
\n\t      the  effect  of these words is  that,  if\t the
\n\t      legislative powers of the Federal and  Provin-
\n\t      cial  legislatures,  which are  enumerated  in
\n\t      List  I and List II of the  seventh  schedule,
\n\t      cannot  fairly be reconciled, the latter\tmust
\n\t      give way to the former. But it appears to them
\n\t      that  it is right first to consider whether  a
\n\t      fair  reconciliation  cannot  be\teffected  by
\n\t      giving to the language of the Federal Legisla-
\n\t      tive  List a meaning which, if less wide\tthan
\n\t      it  might in another context bear, is yet\t one
\n\t      that can properly be given to it, and  equally
\n\t      giving  to  the  language\t of  the  Provincial
\n\t      Legislative List a meaning which it can  prop-
\n\t      erly bear.”\n<\/p>\n
submitted  that Entry 62 list II and Entry 82 list  I  would
\nrequire to be reconciled accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
    5. Learned Attorney General, appearing for the Union  of
\nIndia sought to support the impost as a tax on income  under
\nEntry  82 of list I. It was urged that the word ‘income’  in
\nthat entry broadly indicates the topic or field of  legisla-
\ntion and that it should not be read in a narrow and pedantic
\nsense, but must be given its widest amplitude and should not
\nbe limited by any particular definition which a\t legislature
\nmight have chosen for the limited purposes of that  legisla-
\ntion.  The  Statutory-definitions of and meanings  given  to
\n‘income’  are matters of legislative policy and do  not\t ex-
\nhaust the content of the legislative entry by the particular
\nmanner\tin which, and the extent to which, the\tstatute\t has
\nchosen to define that expression.\n<\/p>\n
    6.\tOn  a  consideration of the matter, we\tarc  of\t the
\nopinion that the submission of the learned Attorney  General
\nas to the source of the legislative power to enact a law  of
\nthe  kind in question require to be accepted. The  Word\t ‘i-
\nncome’ is of elastic import. In interpreting expressions  in
\nthe legislative lists a very wide meaning should be given to
\nthe entries. In understanding the scope and amplitude of the
\nexpres-\n<\/p>\n
889<\/span><\/p>\n
sion  ‘income’ in Entry 82, list I, any meaning which  fails
\nto  accord with the plenitude of the concept of ‘income’  in
\nall  its width and comprehensiveness should be avoided.\t The
\ncardinal  rule of interpretation is that the entries in\t the
\nlegislative  lists  are not to be read in a  narrow  or\t re-
\nstricted sense and that each general’word should be held  to
\nextend\tto  all ancillary or subsidiary\t matters  which\t can
\nfairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in it.\t The
\nwidest\tpossible  construction, according  to  the  ordinary
\nmeaning\t of the words in the entry, must be put\t upon  them.
\nReference  to  legislative  practice may  be  admissible  in
\nreconciling two conflicting provisions in rival\t legislative
\nlists. In construing the words in a constitutional  document
\nconferring  legislative power the most liberal\tconstruction
\nshould\tbe  put\t upon the words so that the  same  may\thave
\neffect in their widest amplitude.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tNavinchandra Mafatlal v. CIT, Bombay City,<\/a> [1955]  1
\nSCR  829 the question was whether the provisions of  section
\n12(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, imposing a tax  on
\ncapital\t gains\twas ultra-vires the powers  of\tthe  federal
\nlegislature  under  Government of India Act,  1935.  It\t was
\ncontended  that taxes on income under Entry 54, list  I,  of
\nthe  Government of India Act, 1935, did not  embrace  within
\nits  scope a tax on capital gains. This contention  was\t re-
\njected. This Court after referring to the following observa-
\ntions of the judicial committee in Kamakshya Narain Singh v.
\nCIT, 1 ITR 5 13 (PC)
\n\t      “income  it is true, is a word  difficult\t and
\n\t      perhaps  impossible to define in\tany  precise
\n\t      general formula. It is a word of the  broadest
\n\t      connotation.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      proceeded to observe:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “What,  then,  is the  ordinary,\tnatural\t and
\n\t      grammatical  meaning  of\tthe  word  “income”?
\n\t      According to the dictionary it means “a  thing
\n\t      that  comes in”. (See Oxford Dictionary,\tVol.
\n\t      V, page 162; Stroud, Vol. II, pages 14-16). In
\n\t      the United States of America and in  Australia
\n\t      both of which also are English speaking  coun-
\n\t      tries  the  word “income” is understood  in  a
\n\t      wide  sense so as to include a  capital  gain:
\n\t      Reference\t may be made to Eisner v.  Macomber,
\n\t      Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietunka,\t and
\n\t      United States v. Stewart, and Resch v. Federal
\n\t      Commissioner  of Taxation.. In each  of  these
\n\t      cases  very wide meaning was ascribed  to\t the
\n\t      word  “income”  as its  natural  meaning.\t The
\n\t      relevant observations of learned
\n\t      890<\/span>
\n\t      Judges  deciding those cases which  have\tbeen
\n\t      quoted  in the judgment of Tendolkar J.  quite
\n\t      clearly  indicate that such wide\tmeaning\t was
\n\t      put upon the word “income” not because of\t any
\n\t      particular legislative practice either in\t the
\n\t      United  States or in the Commonwealth of\tAus-
\n\t      tralia but because such was the normal concept
\n\t      and  connotation of the ordinary English\tword
\n\t      “income”.\t Its  natural meaning  embraces\t any
\n\t      profit  or  gain which is\t actually  received.
\n\t      This is in consonance with the observations of
\n\t      Lord  Wright  to which reference\thas  already
\n\t      been made.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   (Emphasis
\n\t      Supplied)
\n\t\t  Indeed, Navneet Lal’s case, relied upon by
\n\t      Shri  Palkhiwala,\t would itself  conclude\t the
\n\t      point:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  dealing with this point, it is  necessary
\n\t      to consider what exactly is the denotation  of
\n\t      the word “income” used in the relevant  Entry.
\n\t      It  is hardly necessary to emphasise that\t the
\n\t      entries  in  the\tLists cannot be\t read  in  a
\n\t      narrow or restricted sense.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      “But in considering the question as to whether
\n\t      a\t particular item in the hands of  a  citizen
\n\t      can be regarded as his income or not, it would
\n\t      be inappropriate to apply the tests tradition-
\n\t      ally  prescribed\tby  the\t Income-tax  Act  as
\n\t      such.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      In Bhagwandas Jain v. Union of India, AIR<\/a> 1981
\n\t      SC  907  the question  of\t includibility,\t for
\n\t      purposes\tof  income-tax,\t of  the  assessee’s
\n\t      notional\tincome from a house property in\t the
\n\t      personal residential occupation of the  asses-
\n\t      see was assailed on the ground that it did not
\n\t      constitute  ‘income’  for\t the  purposes\t and
\n\t      within the meaning of Entry 82 of List I.\t The
\n\t      amplitude of the expression ‘income’ in  Entry
\n\t      82  of  List I came in for  consideration.  In
\n\t      that context, this Court said:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Even  in\t its ordinary  economic\t sense,\t the
\n\t      expression  ‘income’ includes not merely\twhat
\n\t      is received or what comes in by exploiting the
\n\t      use  of a property but also what one saves  by
\n\t      using it oneself. That which can be  converted
\n\t      into  income  can be  reasonably\tregarded  as
\n\t      giving  rise to income. The tax  levied  under
\n\t      the  Act is on the income (though computed  in
\n\t      an artificial way) from house property in\t the
\n\t      above sense and not on house property.”\n<\/p>\n
891<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t expression  ‘income’ in Entry 82,  List  I  cannot,
\ntherefore, be subjected, by implication, to any\t restriction
\nby the way in which that term might have been deplayed in  a
\nfiscal\tstatute.  A  particular statute\t enacted  under\t the
\nEntry, might, as a matter of fiscal policy, seek to tax some
\nspecies\t of income alone. The definitions would,  therefore,
\nbe  limited by the consideration of fiscal policy of a\tpar-
\nticular statute. But expression ‘income’ in the\t legislative
\nentry has always been understood in a wide and comprehensive
\nconnotation  to embrace within it every kind of\t receipt  or
\ngain either of a capital nature or of a revenue nature.\t The
\n‘taxable-receipts’ as defined in the statute cannot be\theld
\nto  fall outside such a ‘wider connotation’ of\t‘income’  in
\nthe  wider constitutional meaning and sense of the  term  as
\nunderstood in Entry 82, List I.\n<\/p>\n
    Contention (a), therefore,, fails.\n<\/p>\n
    7. Re: Contention (b) and (c):\n<\/p>\n
    We\thad an occasion to deal with a similar\targument  in
\nthe other batch of cases dealing with the  constitutionality
\nof  the\t Expenditure Tax Act, 1987, where  the\t‘chargeable-
\nexpenditure’ incurred in a particular class of hotels  alone
\nwas  brought to tax, leaving the other hotels out.  We\thave
\nrejected  the  challenge  to the  constitutionality  of\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthat Act based on Article 14  and  19(1)(g).
\nThere, hotels in which room charges were Rs.400 or more\t per
\nday per person were alone brought under the Act. The differ-
\nentia  was held to be both intelligible and endowed  with  a
\nrational  nexus\t to  the objects of  the  legislation  viz.,
\nbringing  to  tax certain class of expenditure\tincurred  at
\nhotels\twhich  were legislatively presumed  to,\t attract  an
\neconomically  superior class of clientale. Having regard  to
\nthe  wide  latitude available to the Legislature  in  fiscal
\nadjustments,  the classification was found not violative  of
\nArticle 14.\n<\/p>\n
    8. Similar contentions as to the unreasonableness of the
\nrestrictions  which the imposition of the impugned  tax\t was
\nsaid to bring about on the petitioners’ freedom of trade and
\nbusiness and the adverse affect of this tax on a significant
\narea of national economy generally and the Tourism  Industry
\nin particular have been considered in the petitions  assail-
\ning  the vires of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987. It  is\t now
\nwell  settled that a very wide latitude is available to\t the
\nlegislature  in\t the matter of\tclassification\tof  objects,
\npersons\t and things for purposes of taxation. It must  needs
\nto be so, having regard to the complexities involved in\t the
\nformulation of a taxation policy. Taxation is not now a
\n892<\/span>
\nmere  source of raising money to defray expenses of  Govern-
\nment.  It  is a recognised fiscal-tool to chief\t fiscal\t and
\nsocial objectives. The defferentia of classification presup-
\nposes and proceeds on the premise that it distinguishes\t and
\nkeeps apart as a distinct class hotels, with higher economic
\nstatus\treflected  in one of the indicia  of  such  economic
\nsuperiority.  The presumption of constitutionality  has\t not
\nbeen dislodged by the petitioners by demonstrating how\teven
\nhotels,\t not  brought  into the class, have  also  equal  or
\nhigher chargeable-receipts and how the assumption of econom-
\nic  superiority\t of hotels to which the Act  is\t applied  is
\nerroneous or irrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
    9. For the reasons stated in and following our  Judgment
\nin the said W.P. 1395\/87 and connected cases contentions (b)
\nand (c) are also held and answered against the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    10.\t In  the  result, for the  foregoing  reasons  these
\npetitions are dismissed. There will, however, be no order as
\nto costs in these petitions.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\t\t\t\t    Petitions dismissed.\n893<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Elel Hotels And Investments … vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 1664, 1989 SCR (2) 880 Author: M Venkatachalliah Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj), Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J), Natrajan, S. (J), Venkatachalliah, M.N. (J), Rangnathan, S. PETITIONER: ELEL HOTELS AND INVESTMENTS LIMITEDAND ANR. ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15826","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nElel Hotels And Investments ... vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Elel Hotels And Investments ... vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-13T06:55:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Elel Hotels And Investments … vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-13T06:55:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989\"},\"wordCount\":3627,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989\",\"name\":\"Elel Hotels And Investments ... vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-13T06:55:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Elel Hotels And Investments … vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Elel Hotels And Investments ... vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Elel Hotels And Investments ... vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-13T06:55:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Elel Hotels And Investments … vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989","datePublished":"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-13T06:55:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989"},"wordCount":3627,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989","name":"Elel Hotels And Investments ... vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-13T06:55:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/elel-hotels-and-investments-vs-union-of-india-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Elel Hotels And Investments … vs Union Of India on 2 May, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15826","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15826"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15826\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15826"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15826"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15826"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}