DEWAN BAHADUR SETH GOPAL DAS MOHTA versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER.

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

to direct the issue of any of the writs the issue of which 1s discretionary with this Court. When this position was put to Mr. Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, he very fairly, and, in our opm10n, rightly conceded that it was not possible for him to com~at this position.

For the reasons given above this petition is bound to fail and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Petition dismissed.

DEWAN BAHADUR SETH GOPAL DAS MOHTA "· THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER.

THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., s. R. DAS,

GH?LAM HASAN, BHAGWATI

and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.]

Co11stitution of India, Art. 32-Taxation on Income (Investi-gation Commission) Act, 1947 (XXX of 1947) s. 5(1)-lnvestigation and Report by Commission in respect of profits made by assessee and ·~ tax payable by him-Mutual. settlement between assessee and Government-Petition under Art. 32-Whether competent. The petitioner, business man, was alleged to have made huge profits during the years of War and the Central Government acting under s. 5( 1) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Com-mission) Act, 1947 (XXX of 1947) referred his case to the Investi-gation Commission for investigation and report. During the pendency of the investigation the petitioner's application for settlement under the provisions of s. 8-A of Act XXX of 1947 was ~ accepted by the Central Government and in pursuance thereof the tax was made payable by instalments and the claim for evaded income-tax was thus finally settled by mutual agreement. When the instalments in the sum of Rs. 4 lacs odd still remained due the petitioner preferred the. present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution alleging that the entire proce~dings under Act XXX of 1947, were illegal, ultra vires, void and unconstitutional, that the Income-tax authorities were not competent to recover the amount due from him and that ss. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act were ultra vires as they infringed Arts. 14, 19(1) (£) and 31 of the Constitution.

Held, that the petition under Art. 32 was not competent as whatever had already been paid or whatever was still recoverable from the petitioner was being recovered on the basis of the

Laxmanappa HanurMntaaPfia v. Union •f India Mahajan C. ].

1954 Oclo6w 2 1.

1954. Seth!Gopal Diis Mohta v. Union of India and .A.1wt!ur

settlement between him and the Government. Article 32 is not intended for relief against the voluntary actions of person. Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastn' (A.LR. 1954 S.C. 545) referred to.

• ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 315 of 1954. Petition under article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

H. f. Umrigar, Narain Andfry, f. B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain for the petitioner.

M. C. Setalvad, Attoreny-General for India, and C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India ( G. N. Joshi, Portis A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with them) for the respondents.

1954. October 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J.-The. petitioner in this matter is resident of Akola in the State of Madhya Pradesh and carries on business in various lines, i.e., oil mills, banking, money lending, etc. It is alleged that during the war years he made huge profits but evaded payment of tax. In the year 1948 the Central Government, acting under section 5(1) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, referred his case to the Investigation Commission for investigation and report, in respect of the profits made by him during the period commencing with 1st of January, 1939, and ending on 31st of December, 1947. The Commission, after investigation, reported on the 28th of February, 1951, that the income of the petitioner concealed and withheld from taxation was in the sum of Rs. 27,25,363 and the tax payable by him amounted to Rs. 18,44,949.During the pendency of the investigation the peti-tioner applied for settlement under the provisions of section 8-A of Act XXX of 1947. This application was forwarded along with the report by the Commission to the Central Government. In the settlement application the applicant proposed that he was prepared to pay the sum of Rs. 18,44 ,949 as under :

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

On or before 25-6-1951-Rs. 3,44,949 On or before 25-3-1952-Rs. 5,00,000 On or before 25-3-1953-Rs. 5,00,000 On or before 25-3-1954-Rs. 5,00,000 :and that he be given credit for sum of Rs. 32,034-4-6 :already paid by him1 The Central Government accepted this proposal and the claim for evaded income-tax was thus finally settled by mutual agreement. The assessee, subsequently, asked for more time to pay these instalments and this was also granted from time to time. Commencing from 16th of July, 1951, and till the 10th April, 1954, the petitioner paid total sum of :about Rs. 14,00,000 towards discharge of the liability voluntarily agreed to by him on account of the tax evaded. sum of Rs. 4,50,000 still remains due and is payable in instalments up to the 25th of March, 1955. By one of the terms of the settlement the peti-tioner undertook not to transfer, mortgage, charge or :alienate or encumber m any manner whatsoever any of his movable or immovable properties, barring stock-in-trade of the business, except with the permission of the Commissioner of Income-tax and except for the purpose of the , payment of the tax due under the :settlement.

In June, 1954, after the decision by this Court of Suraj Mal Mohta v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Another(!), the petitioner preferred this petition under the provisions of article 32 of the Constitution alleging that he had been advised that the entire proceedings under the Act which had resulted m the imposition upon him of a· liability of Rs. 18,44,949 and in the pay-ment already made of an aggregate amount of Rs. 13,99,175 were wholly illegal, ultra vires, void and unconstitutional and that the Income-tax authorities were not legally entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 4,50,000 from him. In the grounds of the petition it was stated that sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Act XXX of 1947 were invalid and ultra vzres m so far as they contravene the provlSlons of articles 14, 19(1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution and that under the Act

(1) A. I. R. 1954 S. C. 545·

1954 Seth Gopal Das Mohla v. Union of India and A11other Mahajan C. J.

1954 Se1h Gopal Das Moh ta v. Union of India and Another Mahajan C. J.

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

was not binding and could not be enforced. Whatever be the merits of such contention, it obviously cannot be raised in an application made under the provisions of article 32 of the Constitution. The forum for investigating such allegations is elsewhere. The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

Petition dismissed.

THE STATE OF BOMBAY

BHANJI MUNJI AND ANOTHER. I MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA,

VIVIAN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS and VENKATARAMA AvYAR JJ.]

Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1) (f), 31(2)-Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Bombay Act XXXIll of 1948), ss. 5(1) and 6(4) (a) as amended by Bombay Act II of 1950 and Bombay Act XXXIX of 1950-Whether ultra vires the Cons1;1e<tion-Requisi-tion of premises under s. 4(3) of the Act-Validity-Onus-Statute -l-F hether must contain in express terms the publtc purpose-I<cqurstiiu,, af 1u·orn1,,-Validity.

Sections 5(1) and 6(4) (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 194/i (Bombay Act XXX!II of 19t8) as amended are not ultra vr;·.J Arts. 19( I) (f), and 31 (2) of the Constitution. Article 19(1) (£) read with clause (5) postulates the existence of property which can be enjoyed and over which rights can be exercised because otherwise the reasonable restrictions contem-plated by clause (5) cannot be brought into play. In ·the present case the right to occupy the premises has gone, as also the right to transfer, assign, let or sub-let. What is left is merely the husk of title in the lease-hold. Art. 19(1) (£), therefore, is not attracted. The Bombay Larid Requisition Act, 1948, provides for com-pensation in s. 8 and the requisitions were made for public purpese. Therefore, the provisions of Art. 31(2) of the Constitu-tion are complied with .

. statute is_ not in~~l!d for . the reason that the purpose for which prol":r'Y is reqmslt!oned 1s not stated in express terms in the statute 1:self provided from the whole tenor and intendment of the Act it can_ be gathered that the property is acquired either for th_c: p.irpose ot the State or for any public pnrpose and that the mtentlo1' was to benefit the community at large.

Seth Gopal Das Moh/a v. Union of India. and Anolhtr Mahtifan C. ].

1954 October 12.