{"id":182170,"date":"1951-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1951-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951"},"modified":"2015-04-12T01:36:25","modified_gmt":"2015-04-11T20:06:25","slug":"ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951","title":{"rendered":"Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, … on 12 January, 1951"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, … on 12 January, 1951<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 97, \t\t 1951 SCR 127<\/div>\n
Author: S R Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj), Fazal Ali, Saiyid, Sastri, M. Patanjali, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAMJILAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nINCOME-TAX OFFICER, MOHINDARGARH.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/01\/1951\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nFAZAL ALI, SAIYID\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1951 AIR   97\t\t  1951 SCR  127\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1952 SC 115\t (7)\n D\t    1954 SC 297\t (10)\n R\t    1955 SC   3\t (5)\n F\t    1955 SC 661\t (6)\n RF\t    1959 SC 149\t (52)\n R\t    1959 SC 395\t (28)\n RF\t    1961 SC  65\t (5,37)\n RF\t    1961 SC 232\t (16,37)\n R\t    1961 SC 552\t (32)\n RF\t    1962 SC1006\t (34,72,75,80,81)\n O\t    1962 SC1563\t (15)\n RF\t    1962 SC1621\t (12,31,44,46,122,165)\n R\t    1963 SC 630\t (25)\n R\t    1966 SC 619\t (7)\n R\t    1970 SC 470\t (33)\n RF\t    1971 SC 870\t (10)\n D\t    1974 SC1105\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 31 (1), 32,265--Patiala\nand East Punjab States Union General Provisions (Administra-\ntion) Ordinance (XVl of 2005)--Union of States-Law  relating\nto  Income-tax--Uniform\t law introduced in all\tStates\tfrom\nAugust 20, 1948--Provision that pending proceedings shall be\ngoverned  by existing law--Assessment at different rates  in\ndifferent States--Equality of law--Infringement of fundamen-\ntal right--Assessment of income which accrued before  August\n20, 1948--Legality--Fundamental right not to be deprived  of\nproperty  save\tunder authority of law--Whether\t applies  to\ntaxation--Scope\t of Arts. 31 (1) and 265--Application  under\nArt. 32 for protection against tax laws--Maintainability.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Section  3\t(1) of the Patiala and\tEast  Punjab  States\nUnion General Provisions (Administration) Ordinance (No. XVI\nof 2005) which came into force on February 2, 1949, and\t re-\nenacted s. 3 of an earlier Ordinance which was in force from\nAugust\t20,  1948, provided that as from the  appointed\t day\n(i.e.,\tAugust\t20, 1948) all laws in force in\tthe  Patiala\nState shall apply muutatis mutandis to\n17\n128\nthe  territories of the said Union, provided that  all\tpro-\nceedings pending before courts and other authorities of\t any\nof the Covenanting States shall be disposed of in accordance\nwith  the laws governing such proeeedings in force  in\tsuch\nCovenanting  State immediately before August 20,  1948.\t  In\none of the Covenanting States, viz., Kapurthala, there was a\nlaw of income-tax in force on the said date, the rate of tax\npayable\t under which was lower than that payable  under\t the\nPatiala\t Income-tax Act, and in another\t Covenanting  State,\nNabha,\tthere was no law of income-tax at all. For  the\t ac-\ncounting year ending April 12, 1948, assessees of Kapurthala\nState  were assessed at the lower rates fixed by  the  Kapur\nthala Income-tax Act, in accordance with the proviso in s. 3\nof  the Ordinance relating to pending proceedings,  and\t the\nassessees  of Nabha were assessed at the higher rates  fixed\nby  the Patiala Act as there was no income-tax law in  Nabha\non  August  20,\t 1948, and no  income-tax  proceedings\twere\ntherefore pending in Nabha. The petitioner who was an asses-\nsee residing in Nabha and who was assessed under the Patiala\nAct applied under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ  in\nthe  nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the  assessment\non  the ground (i) that he had been denied  the\t fundamental\nright of equality before the law and equal protection of the\nlaws  guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch  as\nhe  was assessed at a higher rate than that at which  asses-\nsees  of Kapurthala were assessed, (ii) that, as  the  Ordi-\nnance  bringing\t the Patiala Income-tax Act  into  force  in\nNabha was enacted only on August 20, 1948, it cannot operate\nretrospectively\t and  authorise the levy of  tax  on  income\nwhich  had  accrued in the year ending April 12,  1948,\t and\ntherefore he was threatened with infringement of the  funda-\nmental\tright guaranteed by Art. 31 (1) of the\tConstitution\nthat  no  one shall be deprived of his property\t save  under\nauthority of law:\n    Held,  (i) that the discrimination, if any, between\t the\nassessees  of Kapurthala and Nabha was not brought about  by\nthe  Ordinance\tbut by the circumstance that  there  was  no\nincome-tax  law in Nabha and consequently there was no\tcase\nof assessment pending\t   against any Nabha assessees;\t and\nin any case the provision that pending proceedings should be\nconcluded  according to the applicable at the time when\t the\nright  is  or liabilities accrued and the  proceedings\tcom-\nmenced, was a reasonable law rounded upon reasonable classi-\nfication  of  the assessees which is permissible  under\t the\nequal protection clause;\n    (ii)  that, as there is a special provision in Art.\t 965\nof the Constitution that no tax shall be levied or collected\nexcept\tby  authority  of law, cl. (1) of Art.\t31  must  be\nregarded as concerned with deprivation of property otherwise\nthan by the imposition or collection of tax, and inasmuch as\nthe right conferred by Art. 265\t    not a right conferred by\nPart III of the Constitution, it could not be enforced under\nArt.\n129\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 135 of 1950. Application
\nunder  Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ in the  nature
\nof a writ  of certiorari and prohibition.\n<\/p>\n
    Dr. Tek Chand (Hardayal Hardy and Jindra Lal, with\thim)
\nfor the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    M.C.  Setalvad,  Attorney.\tGeneral for  India,  (S.  M.
\nSikri, with him) for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    1951. january 12.  The Judgment of the Court was  deliv-
\nered by
\n    DAS J — This is an application under article 32 of\t the
\nConstitution  for appropriate orders for the  protection  of
\nwhat  the  petitioner claims to be  his\t fundamental  rights
\nguaranteed by articles 14 and 31. This is said to be a\ttest
\ncase,  for, on its decision, we are told, depend the  rights
\nof  numerous  other persons whose interests are\t similar  to
\nthose of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    There is no serious controversy as to the facts material
\nfor  the purposes of this application.\tThey are shortly  as
\nfollows:   On May 5, 1948, the then Rulers of  eight  Punjab
\nStates including. Patiala and Nabha with the concurrence and
\nguarantee of the Government of India entered into a covenant
\nagreeing  to  unite and integrate their territories  in\t one
\nState with a common executive, legislature and judiciary  by
\nthe name of Patiala and East Punjab States Union,  hereinaf-
\nter  compendiously referred to as the Pepsu. By article\t III
\n(6)  of\t the covenant the then Ruler of Patiala\t became\t the
\nfirst President or Raj Pramukh of the Council of Rulers\t and
\nhe is to hold the office during his lifetime. Article VI  of
\nthe covenant is as follows :–\n<\/p>\n
    “(1) The Ruler of each Covenanting State shall, as\tsoon
\nas  may be practicable, and in any event not later than\t the
\n20th  of August, 1948, make over the administration  of\t his
\nState to the Raj Pramukh, and thereupon,\n<\/p>\n
    (a) all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging  to
\nthe Ruler which appertain, or are incidental to the  Govern-
\nment of the Covenanting State shall vest in
\n130<\/span>
\nthe  Union and shall thereafter be exercisable only as\tpro-
\nvided  by this Covenant or by the Constitution to be  framed
\nthereunder;\n<\/p>\n
    (b)\t all duties and obligations of the Ruler  pertaining
\nor  incidental\tto the Government of the  Covenanting  State
\nshall devolve on the Union and shall be discharged by it;\n<\/p>\n
    (c)\t all the assets and liabilities of  the\t Covenanting
\nState shall be the assets and liabilities of the Union, and\n<\/p>\n
    (d)\t the  military forces, if any,\tof  the\t Covenanting
\nState shall become the military forces of the
\nUnion.”\n<\/p>\n
    Article  X provides for the formation of  a\t Constituent
\nAssembly  to frame a constitution of a unitary type for\t the
\nUnion within the framework of the Covenant and the Constitu-
\ntion of India.\tThis Constituent Assembly was also to  func-
\ntion  as  the interim Legislalature of the  Union  until  an
\nelected legislature came into being.  The proviso to  clause
\n(2) of that Article runs as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
    “Provided  that until a Constitution framed by the\tCon-
\nstituent  Assembly comes into operation after receiving\t the
\nassent of the Raj Pramukh, the Raj Pramukh shall have  power
\nto  make  and promulgate Ordinances for the peace  and\tgood
\ngovernment  of the Union or any part thereof, and any  Ordi-
\nnance  so  made shall, for the space of not  more  than\t six
\nmonths\tfrom its promulgation have the like force of law  as
\nan  Act\t passed\t by the Constituent  Assembly;but  any\tsuch
\nOrdinance may be controlled or superseded by any such Act.”\n<\/p>\n
    This Union was inaugurated on July 15, 1948, and the Raj
\nPramukh\t thereafter  took  over the  administration  of\t the
\ndifferent  Covenanting States. The Administration  of  Nabha
\nState was taken over by the Raj Pramukh on August 20,  1948.
\nOn  the same day the Raj Pramukh, in exercise of the  powers
\nvested\tin  him, promulgated an Ordinance (No.\t1  of  2005)
\ncalled the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (Administra-
\ntion)
\n131<\/span>
\nOrdinance,  2005.  The\tfollowing provisions of\t this  Ordi-
\nnance are relevant for our purpose:\n<\/p>\n
    “1.\t (2) It shall extend to the territories included  in
\nthe  Covenanting  States on and from the date on  which\t the
\nadministration\tof any of the said State or States has\tbeen
\nor is made over to the Raj Pramukh.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t      *\t\t   *\n<\/p>\n
    3.\t As  soon as the administration of  any\t Covenanting
\nState  has been taken over by the Raj Pramukh as  aforesaid,
\nall  laws, Ordinances, Acts, Rules,  Regulations,  Notifica-
\ntions, Hidayats and Firrnans-i-Shahi having force of law  in
\nPatiala State on the date of commencement of this  Ordinance
\nshall apply mutatis mutandis to the territories of the\tsaid
\nState  and with effect from that date all laws in  force  in
\nsuch covenanting State immediately  before that\t date  shall
\nbe repealed:\n<\/p>\n
    Provided  that  proceedings\t of  any  nature  whatsoever
\npending\t on such date in the Courts or offices of  any\tsuch
\nCovenanting State shall, notwithstanding anything  contained
\nin   this  Ordinance or any other Ordinance, be disposed  of
\nin  accordance with the laws governing such  proceedings  in
\nforce for the time being m any such Covenanting State.”\n<\/p>\n
    Section  6 provides for the adaptation of the laws\tetc.
\nenforced  under\t section 3 and, amongst\t other\tthings,\t any
\nreference  in these laws etc. to the Patiala State  and\t the
\nlike was to be construed as a reference to the State of\t the
\nUnion.\t A notification (No.35 dated 27-5-05\/11-9-1948)\t was
\nissued over the signature of the Revenue Secretary notifying
\nthat the Patiala Income-tax Act of 2001 and the Rules there-
\nunder had come into force in the various Covenanting  States
\nfrom  August 20, 1948, thereby repealing the law or laws  in
\nforce  in  that\t behalf in those States\t before\t that  date,
\nexcept as to pending proceedings.  It may be mentioned\there
\nthat prior to that date there was no law in the Nabha  State
\nimposing  income-tax  on  the subjects of  that\t State.\t  On
\nNovember  14, 1948, the Commissioner of Income-tax issued  a
\nNotification (No. 4, dated
\n132<\/span>
\n29-7-2005)  intimating that persons belonging to  the  Cove-
\nnanting\t States of Nabha and Nalagarh would be\tassessed  to
\nincome-tax  under the Patiala Income Tax Act, 2001.  It\t was
\nmentioned that persons of those States whose income  reached
\nthe  taxable limit ‘ ‘should henceforward keep\tregular\t and
\nproper\taccounts  for purposes of audit by  the\t Income\t Tax
\nDepartment”  on\t February 2, 1949, Ordinance 1 of  2005\t was
\nrepealed  and replaced by Ordinance No. XVI of 2005  promul-
\ngated  by  the Raj Pramukh and called the Patiala  and\tEast
\nPunjab\tStates\tUnion General  Provisions   (Administration)
\nOrdinance, 2006.  Section 3 (1) runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    “3.\t (1) As from the appointed day, all laws and  rules,
\nregulations, bye-laws and notifications made thereunder, and
\nall  other  provisions having the force of law,\t in  Patiala
\nState  on the said day shall apply mutatis mutandis  to\t the
\nterritories of the Union and all laws in force in the  other
\nCovenanting States immediately before that  day shall  cease
\nto have effect;\n<\/p>\n
    Provided  that  all suits, appeals,\t revisions  applica-
\ntions, reviews, executions and other proceedings, or any  of
\nthem,  whether Civil or Criminal or Revenue, pending in\t the
\nCourts\tand  before authorities of  any\t Covenanting  States
\nshall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance,
\nbe  disposed of in accordance with the laws  governing\tsuch
\nproceedings  in force in any such Covenanting State  immedi-
\nately before the appointed day.”\n<\/p>\n
    By\tsection\t 2 (a) the “appointed day”  was\t defined  as
\nmeaning the 5th day of Bhadon, 2005, corresponding to August
\n20,  1948.  There  was a section  providing  for  adaptation
\nsimilar\t to section 6 of the Ordinance 1 of 2005. There\t was
\nanother Ordinance to which reference has to be made, namely,
\nOrdinance No. 1 of 2006 called the Finance Ordinance promul-
\ngated on April 13, 1949, which came into force on that\tvery
\ndate.  Section 5 of that Ordinance introduced several amend-
\nments to the Patiala Income Tax Act, 2001.   It\t recast
\n133<\/span>
\nsections  3 and 34 of that Act and introduced a new  section
\nas section 23B.\t Section 6 of that Ordinance runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
    “6. For the assessment year beginning on the 1st day  of
\nBaisakh, 2006, that is to say, in respect of the  accounting
\nthe income, profits and gains of the previous year ending on
\nthe last day of Chet, 2005,-\n<\/p>\n
    (a)\t income-tax shall be charged at the rates  specified
\nin Part I of the Second Schedule to this Ordinance, and\n<\/p>\n
    (b)\t rates of super tax shall, for the purposes of\tsec-
\ntion 55 of the Patiala Income Tax Act, 2001, be specified in
\nPart II of the Second Schedule to this Ordinance.”\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  in this setting that the facts  leading  to\t the
\npresent petition have to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
   The petitioner is a resident of Ateli in the district  of
\nMohindargarh  now in Pepsu but\twhich  formerly formed\tpart
\nof the Nabha State.  The petitioner has been carrying on his
\nbusiness at Ateli for a number of years under the’ name\t and
\nstyle\tof   Raghunath Rai Ram Parshad.\t He never  paid\t any
\nincome-tax  as\t no such tax was imposed by any law  in\t the
\nNabha  State.\tOn  October ’20, 1949,\tthe  petitioner\t was
\nserved\twith  a notice under sections 22(2) and\t 88  of\t the
\nPatiala\t Income\t Tax Act, 2001, requiring him  to  submit  a
\nreturn\tfor the\t Income\t Tax  year 2006 (13-4-1949 to  12-4-
\n1950)  disclosing  his\tincome\tduring\tthe  previous\tyear
\n(13-4-1948  to 12-4-1949).  The petitioner, on\tDecember  4,
\n1949, filed his return for the year 2006 and on February 14,
\n1950,  he was assessed to income-tax. On May 23,  1950,\t the
\npetitioner  received a notice under section 34 calling\tupon
\nhim  to file his return for the year ending the last day  of
\nChet  2005,  i.e., for the year 13-4-1948 to  12-4-1949.  In
\nthis  return  he had to specify his income of  the  previous
\nyear,  namely, 2004 (i.e., 13-4-1947 to 12-4-1948).  It\t ap-
\npears  that  the petitioner along with\tother  assessees  of
\nAteli and Kanina submitted a petition before the Income\t Tax
\nOfficer on July 9, 1950, asking him not to
\n134<\/span>
\nproceed\t with the assessment for the year 2005 but  on\tJuly
\n13, 1950, the Income Tax Officer assessed him to the best of
\nhis judgment under section 34(4) read with section 22(4)  of
\nthe Income Tax Act.  The petitioner along with other  asses-
\nsees  similarly situated moved the Income  Tax\tCommissioner
\nand the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, but without any
\nsuccess.  No formal appeal under the  Patiala Income Tax Act
\nappears to have been filed by the petitioner against assess-
\nments  for either of the two years 2005 and 2006. On  August
\n10,  1950, the petitioner filed his present petition  before
\nthis Court under article 32 of the Constitution praying that
\na  writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari be issued\t for
\nquashing the assessments of the petitioner’s income  accrued
\nin  the\t years 2004 and 2005 and  other\t ancillary  reliefs.
\nDuring the pendency of this petition the income-tax authori-
\nties  have issued a notice under section 46 intimating\tthat
\npenalty will be imposed if the tax was not paid up.
\n    The\t contention of the petitioner in the first place  is
\nthat  he has been denied the fundamental right\tof  equality
\nbefore the law and the equal protection of the laws  guaran-
\nteed  to him by article 14 of the Constitution.\t His  griev-
\nances  are formulated in paragraphs 10 and 11 of  his  peti-
\ntion.  It is said that while the people of Kapurthala  which
\nis  included in Pepsu have been asked to pay income-tax\t for
\nthe  period prior to August 20, 1948, at the old rate  fixed
\nby  the Kapurthala Income Tax Act which was lower  than\t the
\nrate  fixed by the Patiala Income Tax Act, 2001, the  people
\nof  Nabha who had not to pay any income-tax prior to  August
\n20, 1948, at all have been made liable to pay at the  higher
\nPatiala\t rate and that such discrimination  offends  against
\nthe  provisions\t of article 14.\t This charge is\t refuted  by
\nparagraph  10 of the affidavit of Sardar Gurbax\t Singh,\t the
\nAdditional  Director of Inspection (income Tax), New  Delhi,
\nwho was formerly the Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab\t and
\nPepsu,\twhich  has been filed in opposition to\tthe  present
\npetition.  It is there stated that for the  assessment\tyear
\n2005,  in Kapurthala the assessees whose cases were  pending
\non
\n135<\/span>
\nAugust\t20, 1948, were assessed under the Kapurthala  Income
\nTax  Act at rates fixed thereunder but that for the  assess-
\nment year 2006 the provisions of the Patiala Income Tax\t Act
\nand  the rates prescribed thereunder were uniformly  applied
\nin all areas of the Pepsu, including Kapurthala\t This  alle-
\ngation\twhich is not denied in the affidavit  filed  by\t the
\npetitioner  in reply must be taken as correct.\tThe  assess-
\nment  of Kapurthala assessees for the year 2005 at  the\t old
\nKapurthala  rate  was obviously made under  the\t proviso  to
\nsection\t 3 of Ordinance No. 1 of 2005, which was  reproduced
\nin  the proviso to section 3(1)of the Ordinance No.  XVI  of
\n2006  and both of which required all pending proceedings  to
\nbe  completed according to the law applicable to those\tpro-
\nceedings when they were initiated. No case of assessment was
\npending\t as against any Nabha assessee on August  20,  1948,
\nfor there was no Income Tax Act in Nabha prior to that\tdate
\nand,  therefore, there could be no occasion  for  completing
\nany  pending proceedings against any of such  assessees.  In
\nthe premises, there can be no grievance by them on the score
\nof  discrimination.   The discrimination, if  any,  was\t not
\nbrought about by the two Ordinances, but by the circumstance
\nthat  there was no Income Tax Act in Nabha and\tconsequently
\nthere  was no case of assessment pending against  any  Nabha
\nassessees.  In any case the provision that pending  proceed-
\nings should be concluded according to the law applicable  at
\nthe  time  when the rights or liabilities  accrued  and\t the
\nproceedings  commenced\tis a reasonable law rounded  upon  a
\nreasonable classification of the assessees which is  permis-
\nsible  under  the equal protection clause and  to  which  no
\nexception can be taken. In our opinion the grievance of\t the
\nalleged\t infringement of fundamental right under Article  14
\nis not well-founded at all.\n<\/p>\n
    Dr. Tek Chand appearing in support of the petition\tnext
\ncontends that the administration of Nabha State having\tbeen
\ntaken  over by the Raj Pramukh only on August 20, 1948,\t and
\nthe Patiala law including the Patiala Income Tax Act,  2001,
\nhaving been brought
\n136<\/span>
\ninto  operation on and from August 20, 1948, the  assessment
\nof the tax on the petitioner’s income which accrued prior to
\nAugust\t20, 1948, was wholly illegal and not  authorised  by
\nthe said Ordinances and the State by insisting on collecting
\nthe tax so illegally assessed was threatening to invade\t the
\npetitioner’s  fundamental  right to property  guaranteed  by
\narticle
\n31(1) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Article 31(1) runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“(1)  No  person shall be deprived of his property  save  by
\nauthority of law.”\n<\/p>\n
    It will be noticed that clause (1) reproduces subsection
\n(1)  of\t section 299 of the Government of India\t Act,  1935,
\nwithout the words “in British India.” Reference has ‘next to
\nbe  made  to article 265 which is in Part  XII,\t Chapter  I,
\ndealing\t with “Finance.” That article provides that  no\t tax
\nshall  be  levied or collected except by authority  of\tlaw.
\nThere ‘was no similar provision in the corresponding chapter
\nof  the\t Government of India Act, 1935.\t  If  collection  of
\ntaxes amounts to deprivation of property within the  meaning
\nof article 31(1), then there was no point in making a  sepa-
\nrate  provision again as has been made in article 265.\t It,
\ntherefore,  follows  that clause (1) of article 31  must  be
\nregarded as concerned with deprivation of property otherwise
\nthan  by the imposition or collection of tax, for  otherwise
\narticle 265 becomes  wholly redundant. In the United  States
\nof  America  the power of taxation is regarded\tas  distinct
\nfrom  the exercise of police power or eminent  domain.\t Our
\nConstitution evidently has also treated taxation as distinct
\nfrom  compulsory acquisition of property and has made  inde-
\npendent provision giving protection against taxation save by
\nauthority of law.  When Dr. Tek Chand was asked if that\t was
\nnot the correct position, he did ,not advance any cogent  or
\nconvincing  answer to refute the conclusion put to him.\t  In
\nour  opinion, the protection against imposition and  collec-
\ntion  of taxes save by authority of law directly comes\tfrom
\narticle 265, and is not secured by clause (1) of article 31.
\nArticle 265,
\n137<\/span>
\nnot being in Chapter IIi of the Constitution, its protection
\nis  not\t a  fundamental right which can be  enforced  by  an
\napplication  to this court under article 32.  It is not\t our
\npurpose to say that the right secured by article 265 may not
\nbe  enforced.\tIt  may certainly be  enforced\tby  adopting
\nproper proceedings.  All that we wish to state is that\tthis
\napplication in so far as it purports to be rounded on  arti-
\ncle 32 read with article 31(1) to this Court is misconceived
\nand must fail.\n<\/p>\n
    The whole of Dr. Tek Chand’s argument was rounded on the
\nbasis  that protection against imposition and collection  of
\ntaxes  save  by authority of law was guaranteed\t by  article
\n31(1)  and  his endeavour was to establish  that  the  Pepsu
\nOrdinances  could  not, in law, and did not,  on  a  correct
\ninterpretation of them, impose any income-tax retrospective-
\nly; that the Income Tax Officer on an erroneous view of\t the
\nlaw had wrongly assessed the tax on income accrued prior  to
\nAugust\t20, 1948, and that consequently the  petitioner\t was
\nbeing threatened with deprivation of property otherwise than
\nby authority of law. In the view we have taken, namely, that
\nthe  protection\t against imposition or collection  of  taxes
\nsave  by authority of law is secured by article 265 and\t not
\nby  article 31(1), the questions urged by Dr. Tek  Chand  do
\nnot  really  arise and it is not necessary  to\texpress\t any
\nopinion\t on them on this application.  Those  questions\t can
\nonly arise in appropriate proceedings and not on an applica-
\ntion  under  article 32. In our\t judgment  this\t application
\nfails on the simple ground that no fundamental right of\t the
\npetitioner  has\t been infringed either under article  14  or
\nunder article 31(1) and we accordingly dismiss the  petition
\nwith costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t      Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellant: Naunit Lal.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the respondent: P.A. Mehta.\n<\/p>\n
138<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, … on 12 January, 1951 Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 97, 1951 SCR 127 Author: S R Das Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj), Fazal Ali, Saiyid, Sastri, M. Patanjali, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan PETITIONER: RAMJILAL Vs. RESPONDENT: INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MOHINDARGARH. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/01\/1951 BENCH: DAS, SUDHI […]<\/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-182170","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, ... on 12 January, 1951 - 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\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, ... on 12 January, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951\" \/>\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=\"1951-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-11T20:06:25+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, … on 12 January, 1951\",\"datePublished\":\"1951-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-11T20:06:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951\"},\"wordCount\":2953,\"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\\\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951\",\"name\":\"Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, ... on 12 January, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1951-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-11T20:06:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, … on 12 January, 1951\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, ... on 12 January, 1951 - 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\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, ... on 12 January, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1951-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-11T20:06:25+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, … on 12 January, 1951","datePublished":"1951-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-11T20:06:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951"},"wordCount":2953,"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\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951","name":"Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, ... on 12 January, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1951-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-11T20:06:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramjilal-vs-income-tax-officer-on-12-january-1951#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, … on 12 January, 1951"}]},{"@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\/182170","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=182170"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182170\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182170"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}