Case Details

Citation(s)
1968 SLG 149 1968 SLD 149 (1968) 68 ITR 272
Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL NO, 809 OF 1966, NOVEMBER 7, 1967
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J. R.S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI G.K. MITTER AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ
Niren De, A.N. Kirpal, S.P. Nayyar for the Appellant. M.C. Setalvad and D.N. Mukherjee for the
Respondent

S.K. Dutta, Income Tax Officer

v.

Lawarence Singh Ingty

Law:

Section:

Section 10(26) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 4(3)(xxi) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Scheduled tribes - Assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63 - Respondent belonging to a Schedule tribes was a permanent inhabitant of an autonomous district included in Part A of Table appended o paragraph 20 of Sixth Schedule of Constitution and was a Govt. servant - High Court quashed assessments in his case holding that section 4(3)(xxi) of 1922 Act as well as section 10(26) of 1961 Act to extent they excluded Govt. servants from benefit of exemption given thereunder were void, being violative of article 14 of Constitution - Whether a State does not have to tax everything in order to tax something, it is allowed to pick and choose districts, objects, persons, methods and even rates for taxation if it does so reasonably - Held, yes - Whether there could be no distinction between income earned by a Government servant and that earned by a person serving in a company or under a private individual - Held, yes - Whether where income earned by members of Scheduled tribes residing in Khasi-jaintia hills excepting in case of Government servants was exempt from income-tax, be it as salaried officers, lawyers, doctors or persons in other walks of life, there was no legal basis for differentiation and therefore, prima facie, Govt. servants had been discriminated against, discrimination being writ large on face of provisions in question - Held, yes - Whether for purpose of taxation a classification can be made on basis of administrative convenience but case of Government servants stand cannot be said to on a footing different from that of employees in statutory corporations or even well recognized firms - Held, yes - Whether social status and economic resources of a Government servant can not be said to be different from that of another holding a similar position in a corporation or that of a successful medical practitioner, lawyer, architect, etc. - Held, yes - Whether only a portion of section 4(3)(xxi) of 1922 Act, and section 10(26) of 1961 Act, namely words "provided that such member is not in service of Government" found in section 4(3)(xxi) of 1922 Act, and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492