Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 8]

Supreme Court of India

Southern Roadways Private Ltd vs Union Of India And Another on 16 January, 1962

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 1962 SC 15

           PETITIONER:
SOUTHERN ROADWAYS PRIVATE LTD.

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
16/01/1962

BENCH:


ACT:
     Income Tax-Development Rebate-Disallowance on
office	appliances   and  transport   vehicles	If
discriminatory-Income-tax Act,	1922 (11  of 1922)
as amended  by the  Taxation Laws  (Amendment) Act
(28 of 1960, s. 10(2) (vi-b) second proviso.



HEADNOTE:
     The assessee  company owned  a fleet of buses
and carried  on the  business  of  transport.  The
income-tax officer  disallowed development  rebate
on the	transport vehicles owned by the company as
provided by  the second proviso to s. 10(2) (vi-b)
of the	Income-tax Act. The company challenged the
section	 on  the  ground  that	the  said  proviso
offends Art.  14 in  that it discriminates between
machinery  which  is  office  appliances  or  road
transport vehicles and other kinds of machinery.
^
     Held,  that   there   is	nothing	  in   the
Constitution which  prevents the  Legislature from
choosing the  objects  of  taxation  from  amongst
various classes of machinery for purpose of giving
development rebate.



JUDGMENT:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 143 of 1961.

Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental rights.

S. Swaminathan and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioner.

K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and P. D. Menon, for the respondents.

595

1962. January 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR,J.-This is a petition by the assessee under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of the second proviso to s. 10(2) (vi-b) of Income tax Act introduced by The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act (28 of 1960). The relevant section with the proviso is as follows:-

S. 10(1) "The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head "Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation" in respect of the profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation carried on by him. (2) Such profits or gains shall be computed after making the following allowances, namely:
............................................. ..........
............................................. ..........
(vi-b) in respect of machinery or plant being new, which has been installed after the 31st day of March, 1954, and which is wholly used for the purposes of the business carried on by the assessee, a sum by way of development rebate in respect of the year of installation equivalent to twenty-five per cent of the actual cost of such machinery or plant to the assessee :
Provided that no allowance under this clause shall be made unless the particulars prescribed for the purpose of clause (vi) have been furnished by the assessee in respect of such machinery or plant; Provided further that no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of any machinery or plant which consist of office appliances or road transport vehicles." The petitioner is a limited company with its registered office at Madurai in the State of Madras 596 which owns a fleet of buses and lorries and carries on the business of transport In respect of assessment year 1960-61 it claimed a development rebate on all its plants and machinery including business. The Income tax Officer disallowed the claim of rebate on transport vehicles under the proviso above quoted and computed the tax payable without such rebate. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the proviso offends Art. 14 in that it discriminates between machinery which is office appliance or road transport vehicles and other kind of machinery. It is difficult to accept such a contention because there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the legislature from choosing the object of taxation from amongst various classes of machinery for the purpose of giving development rebate. The Constitution does not prohibit any such classification which has been made in the pressnt case.
The petition is wholly without merit and is therefore dismissed and the rule is discharged. The petitioner will pay the costs of the respondent.
Petition dismissed.