—
M/s. Stesiwerth La.
Ve Stete of Assem Kepur J.
Jonuary 16, e
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
In view of our decision on these two points the third point, that is, the refusal of the Sales Tax Officer to amend the registration certificate will have no force.
In the result this petition fails and is dismissed and the rule is discharged. The petitioner will pay the costs of the respondent.
Petition dismissed.
SOUTHERN ROADWAYS PRIVATE LTD. - ow UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHE
(B. P. Srvua, C.J., J. L. Kapur, M. HrpayaTu an, J.C. SHan and J. R. Mupnorxar, JJ.)
Income Tax— Development Rebate—Disallowance on office appliances and transport vehicles If discriminatory—Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) as amended by the Tazation Laws (Amendment) Act (28 of 1960, 8. 10(2) (vi-b) second proviso.
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 tos. 10(2) (vi-b) of the Income-tax Act. The company challenged the section on the ground that the said proviso offénds 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.
ORIGINAL JURIBDICTION : Petition No. 143 of L961.
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.
28.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 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 shal] 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 com- puted after making the following allowances, namely :
(vi-b) in respect of machinery or plant being new, which has been installed after the 3lst 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
—
Southern Roadways Private Lid. Va Union of India
Kapur J.
Southern Roa iwaya Private Lid. ve Union of India
Kapw J.
T4962
January 16,
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
which owns a fleet of buses and lorries and carries on the business of transport In respcot 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 with. out such rebate. [t 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 present case.
The petition is wholly without merit and _ is therefore dismissed and the rule is discharged. ‘I'he petitioner will pay the costs of the respondent.
Petition dismissed.
P. V. RAGHAVA REDDI AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(B. P. Sinua, C. J., J. L. Kapur, M. Hinayvatesc.air,
J.C. Suan and J. BR. Mvpno.kan, Jd.)
Nou-vesident company Commission due tu—Reecired hy fudian fi mand paid directly or through others to the non-renient company --Uf statutory agent—Incoime, if recetued in taxable territery--Ladian [ncome-tar Act, 1922 (11 af 1922), ». 4(1) fa), Hij(e), £3.
The appellant is a firm which was doing business in mica. To negotiate for orders and to handle its other affairs the appellant engaged a company in Japan which is admittedly a “nonresident” company. By agreement between the