Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.31 seconds)The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 2 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Salonah Tea Company Ltd vs Superintendent Of Taxes Nowgong & Ors. ... on 18 December, 1987
7. The next question to be considered is whether in such circumstances the court should, in exercise of its powers under article 226, order the repayment of the amount that was collected without authority of law. I need only cite the decision of the Supreme Court in Salonah Tea Co Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes [1988] 173 ITR 42 (SC). Tax had been collected without authority of law. It had been paid, as here, pursuant to notices which were without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that where the assessment had been made without jurisdiction, it was manifest that the respondents had no authority to retain the money that had been collected and it was liable to be refunded. The question was whether, under article 226, the court should direct the refund. The court said (at p. 46), "Normally speaking, in a society governed by rule of law, taxes should be paid by citizens as soon as they are due in accordance with law. Equally, as a corollary of the said statement of law, it follows that taxes collected without the authority of law, as in this case, from a citizen should be refunded, because no State has the right to receive or to retain taxes or monies realised from citizens without the authority of law". After a review of earlier judgments, the Supreme Court held that normally, in a case where monies had been realised without the authority of law, the same had to be refunded and in an application under article 226, the court had the power to direct the refund unless there had been avoidable laches on the part of the petitioner. The refunding of the amount as a consequence of declaring the assessment to be bad and the recovery to be illegal would be in consonance with justice, equity and good conscience.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... vs Amarchand N. Shroff, By His Heirsand ... on 10 October, 1962
The court observed that the distinguished features between the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the Wealth-tax Act were overlooked when support was sought from the constructions set out in Amarchand N. Shroff' case . The two Acts were not in pari materia and the nature of the charge therein had no similarity. While under the Income-tax Act, the liability to pay income-tax accrued on the income earned throughout the accounting year, the liability to be assessed to wealth-tax arose only in respect of the net wealth held on the valuation date. Therefore, if a person was not liable on the valuation date and he had died before it, there was, under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, no question of that person being assessed to wealth-tax for any period prior to the valuation date. In the result, the court answered the question, to which I have adverted, in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In other words, it held that the value of the assets left by the assessee's father had to be included in computing the net wealth of the assessee.
Section 3 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
1