Shri W.O Holdsworth ... v. The State Of U.P Thr..., Allahabad High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Supreme Court A. No. 245 of 1955

Attorney(S)

G.S. Pathak and R.S. Pathak
Standing Counsel

Judges

Hon'ble Mr. Chandra Bhan Agarwal
Hon'ble Sir O.H. Mootham

Acts

Section 24 of the United Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948.
SECTION 205 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT 1935
Sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1918,
Section 24 of the United provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act,
Section 23(5) of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947,
Section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act 1.944
Section 205(1) of the Government of India Act
Section 66(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act
INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT
Section 21 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act
Sub-section (2) of Section 24

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application under Article 133(1) of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of the High Court dated 19-4-1955 which answered adversely to the applicants a reference made by the Revision Board under Section 24 of the United Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948. The applicants had been assessed to Agricultural Income-tax and an appeal made by them under Section 21 of the Act against the order of the assessing authority had been dismissed. Under sub-section (2) of Section 24 an assessee could apply to the Revision Board to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of the appellate order; sub-section (7) provided that the High Court should decide the question of law and send a copy of its judgment to the Revision Board, which would then dispose of the case accordingly.

The preliminary question raised was whether the High Court's pronouncement under Section 24(7) is a "judgment ... in a civil proceeding" within the meaning of Article 133(1) so as to permit an appeal to the Supreme Court. The State did not oppose the application. Counsel for the applicants (Sri G. S. Pathak) placed authorities before the Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a pronouncement of the High Court under Section 24(7) of the United Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 — a decision on a question of law sent to the Revision Board for its disposal — constitutes a "judgment ... in a civil proceeding" within the meaning of Article 133(1) of the Constitution and therefore is appealable to the Supreme Court.
Whether the expression "judgment, decree or final order" in Article 133(1) should be read so as to treat "judgment" as including consultative or advisory determinations (as argued by the applicants' counsel), or whether "judgment" is limited to a final declaration or determination of the rights of the parties.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

Counsel for the applicants (Sri G. S. Pathak) argued that because Article 133(1) uses the phrase "judgment, decree or final order" (placing the word "final" immediately before "order") the word "judgment" should be given a broader meaning than in earlier instruments (such as the Letters Patent). The transposition of "final" was said to extend the meaning of "judgment" so as to include the High Court's pronouncement under Section 24(7).
The applicants' counsel placed relevant authorities before the Court in support of this broader construction.

State's Position

The State did not oppose the application and no argument was advanced on behalf of the State in the Court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. v. Chief Revenue Authority, AIR 1923 PC 148	The Privy Council held that a High Court judgment given under the provision of the Indian Income-tax Act (Sub-section (3) of Section 51) was not a "final judgment, decree or order" within the meaning of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court.	Cited to show that judicial pronouncements under statutory consultative provisions may not be "final" for purposes of appeal; used as a foundational authority distinguishing consultative decisions from final orders.
Premchand Satramdas v. State of Bihar, AIR 1951 SC 14	The Supreme Court applied Tata and held that no appeal lay to the Supreme Court from an order of a High Court dismissing an application under Section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act to direct the Board of Revenue to state a case and refer it to the High Court; the High Court's role under that section was limited to deciding a question of law and sending its judgment to the Board, and the High Court's order did not by itself affect the rights of the parties.	Relied on to demonstrate precedent in the Supreme Court that consultative High Court decisions under statutory referral provisions are not appealable to the Supreme Court because they do not constitute final orders affecting parties' rights.
P. A. Raju Chattiar & Bros. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, AIR 1951 Mad 590	Held by a Bench of the Madras High Court (as cited) that the word "judgment" in the corresponding phrase was to be understood broadly, to include decisions which finally determine rights of the parties so far as the Court is concerned, including decisions under certain statutory provisions.	Not followed by the Court in the present opinion; the present Court expressed the view that such broader readings were not well founded.
Sriram Gulabdas v. Board of Revenue (M.P.), AIR 1954 Nag 1 (FB)	The Nagpur High Court held that the word "judgment" in the corresponding constitutional phrase included decisions that finally determine rights of the parties so far as the Court is concerned, including certain statutory consultative decisions.	Not accepted by the present Court; cited as an instance of contrary High Court views which the present Court respectfully disagreed with.
Kuppuswami Rao v. The King, AIR 1949 FC 1	The Federal Court held that the word "judgment" in Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935 means, as in England, "the determination of the rights of the parties in the matter brought before the Court."	Adopted as authoritative on the meaning of "judgment" in comparable statutory/constitutional language; used to support the conclusion that "judgment" denotes a determination of parties' rights.
Mohammad Amin Brothers Ltd. v. Dominion of India, AIR 1950 FC 77	The Federal Court held that a decision of an appellate Bench which set aside an order and remitted the case for future hearing was not a "judgment or final order" under Section 205 because it did not dispose of the rights of the parties; interlocutory judgments are excluded from the scope of appeals under that provision.	Quoted with approval (including Mukherjea, J.'s statement) to support the proposition that interlocutory or consultative judgments are not within the scope of appealable "judgment" and to conclude that Article 133(1) does not provide for appeals against interlocutory judgments.
Pehlad Rai & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1952 Punj 299	The Punjab High Court (as cited) took a similar view to the Federal Court decisions regarding the meaning of "judgment" (noting an erroneous report detail about wording in the citation).	Referred to as another authority reaching a conclusion consistent with the present Court's view on the meaning of "judgment" in Article 133(1).
Jamnadas Prabhudas, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, AIR 1952 Bom 479	The Bombay High Court (Chagla, C.J.) exhaustively considered the question and took a view consistent with the narrower meaning of "judgment" as a final determination of rights.	Relied upon as supporting authority for the narrower interpretation of "judgment" applied by the present Court.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by identifying the statutory mechanism: under Section 24(7) of the United Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act the High Court is asked only to decide questions of law and to send a copy of its judgment to the Revision Board, which must then dispose of the case in accordance with that judgment. The Court observed that these provisions are materially the same as provisions previously considered under the Indian Income-tax Act and related statutes.

The Court reviewed authorities. It noted the Privy Council decision in Tata Iron and Steel and the Supreme Court's application of that decision in Premchand Satramdas to conclude that High Court pronouncements made under statutory referral provisions are consultative and do not themselves affect the rights of the parties; the final order is the one passed by the administrative or revenue authority (the Board).

The applicants' counsel argued for a broader construction of "judgment" based on the positioning of the word "final" in Article 133(1). The Court considered this argument but placed primary reliance on Federal Court authorities (Kuppuswami Rao and Mohammad Amin Brothers) construing the comparable phrase in Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Those authorities establish that "judgment" means the determination of the rights of the parties and excludes interlocutory or consultative judgments. The Court accepted Mukherjea, J.'s statement that the collection of the words "judgment, decree or final order" makes clear that no appeal is provided against an interlocutory judgment or order.

The Court also noted High Court decisions (Punjab and Bombay) that had taken a similar view to the Federal Court and observed that contrary, broader readings (as in some Madras and Nagpur decisions) were not persuasive. On this basis the Court concluded that the expression "judgment" in Article 133(1) means a final declaration or determination of the rights of the parties and does not include a judgment given in a consultative or advisory capacity.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The application for leave to appeal under Article 133(1) was found to be incompetent and is dismissed.

Implications:

The direct effect is that the applicants are not granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the High Court's pronouncement made under Section 24(7) of the United Provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948.
The Court held that a High Court decision rendered in a consultative or advisory capacity under the statutory referral mechanism does not constitute a "judgment" for the purposes of Article 133(1) and so is not appealable to the Supreme Court under that provision.
There will be no order as to costs.

Show full summary ...

Shri W.O Holdsworth And Others v. The State Of U.P Through The Commissioner Of Agricultural Income Tax, U.P Lucknow .

1. This is an application under Article 133(1) of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of this Court dated 19-4-1955, answering adversely to the applicants a reference made to it by the Revision Board under Section 24 of the United provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948.

2. The applicants had been assessed to Agricultural Income-tax under that Act, and an appeal made by them under Section 21 of the Act against the order of the assessing authority had been dismissed.

Sub-section (2) of Section 24 provides that in such circum stances an assessee may within the time prescribed and upon payment of the requisite fee apply to the Revision Board to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of the appellate order, and Sub-section (7) so far as it is relevant, then provides that

"The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions of law raised thereby and shall send to the Revision Board a copy of such judgment under the seal) of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revision Board shall dispose of the case accordingly ........"

3. Now an appeal will lie to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1) only from "a judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding" of a High Court, and the Preliminary question arises whether the pronouncement of this Court is "a judgment .......... in a civil proceeding" within the meaning of that clause.

We have not had the advantage of hearing arguments on behalf of the State, which does not oppose the application, but Sri G. S. Pathak who appears for the applicants has placed the authorities before us and we are much obliged to him for the assistance which he has given us.

4. The relevant provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 24 of the Act are in all material respects the same as those of Sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1918, and in -- 'Tata fron and Steel Co., Ltd. v. Chief Revenue Authority, AIR 1923 PC 148 (A), the Privy Council held that a judgment of the High Court under that provision of the Indian Income-tax Act was not a "final judgment decree or order" within the meaning of Clause 39 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court.

This decision was applied by the Supreme Court in --'Premchand Satramdas v. State of Bihar', AIR 1951 SC 14 (B), in which the Court held that no appeal lay to the Supreme Court from an order of a High Court dismissing an application under Section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act 1.944 to direct the Board of Revenue Bihar to state a case and refer it to the High Court. Section 21 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act was in the same terms as Section 24 of the United provinces Agricultural Income-tax Act, and with regard to the former section Fazl Ali J, who delivered the judgment of the Court, said at p. 804

"All that the High Court is required to do under Section 21 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act is to decide the question of law raised and send a copy of its judgment to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue then has to dispose of the case in the light of the judgment of the High Court. It is true that the Board's order is based on what is stated by the High Court to be the correct legal position, but the fact remains that the order of the High Court standing by itself does not affect the rights of the parties, and the final order in the matter is the order which is passed ultimately by the Board of Revenue"

The learned Judge summed up the matter at page 805 in these words:

"The crux of the matter therefore is that the jurisdiction of the High Court was only consultative and was neither original nor appellate."

Sri 'G. S. Pathak however argues that as in Clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution the relevant words are "judgment, decree or final order", and not (as in the Letters Patent) "final judgment, decree or order", the necessary effect of the transposition of the word "final" from its controlling position at the commencement of the clause to a place immediately before the word "order" is to give a far more extended meaning to the word "judgment" than was formerly the case.

This view commended itself to a Bench of the Madras High Court in -- 'P. A. Raju Chattiar & Bros. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras', AIR 1951 Mad 590 (C) & -- 'Sriram Gulabdas v. Board of Revenue, (M.P.), Nagpur', AIR 1954 Nag 1 (FB) (D) the Nagpur High Court held that the word 'judgment' in the corresponding phrase in Article 132(1) included any decision on a question at issue between the parties to any proceeding properly before the Court which finally determines the rights of the parties so far as the Court is concerned, and that a decision under Section 23(5) of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, or under Section 66(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act was a "judgment". With great respect we do not think these views to be well founded.

5. The phrase "judgment, decree or final order" is to be found in Sub-section (1) of Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided that, in the circumstances therein mentioned, an appeal would lie to the Federal Court "from any judgment, decree or final order" of a High Court; and the meaning of the terms used in that phrase has been judicially considered by the Federal Court in -- 'Kuppuswami Rao v. The King', AIR 1949 FC 1 (E) and -- 'Mohammad Amin Brothers Ltd. v. Dominion of India', AIR 1950 FC 77 (F).

In the former of these cases the Federal Court, in a judgment delivered by Kania, C. J., held that the word "judgment" in Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, means; as in England, "the determination of the rights of the patties in the matter brought before the Court."

In 'Mohammad Amin Brothers' case (F)', the question was whether an appeal lay to the Federal Court from the decision of a Bench of the Calcutta High Court by which an order of a learned single Judge directing the Compulsory winding-up of the appellant company was set aside and the case sent back to the trial Court to be heard at a future date in accordance with the directions contained in the order.

The Federal Court held that the judgment of the appellate Bench was not a judgment or final order within the meaning of Section 205, as it did not dispose of the rights of the parties to the suit Dealing with the argument that if the order appealed against was not a final order it could still be regarded as a judgment and as such come within the purview of Section 205 of the Government of India Act, Mukherjea, J., delivering the judgment of the Court referred with approval to 'Kuppuswami Rao v. The King (E)', and said "If the order which is made in this case is an interlocutory order, the judgment must necessarily be held to be an interlocutory judgment and the collection of the words "judgment, decree or final order" in Section 205(1) of the Government of India Act makes it clear that no appeal is provided against an interlocutory judgment or order".

With great respect we agree with this statement of the law and we think it concludes the matter. A similar view as to the meaning to be given to the word "judgment" in Clause (1) of Ant 133 of the Constitution was taken by the Punjab High Court in -- "Pehlad Rai & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax', AIR 1952 Punj 299 (G) (although the report of that case erroneously states that the words used in Article 133(1) are "final judgment, decree or order"), and by the Bombay High Court in --'Jamnadas Prabhudas, Bombay v. Commissioned of Income-tax, Bombay City', AIR 1952 Bom 479 (H), where the question was exhaustively considered by Chagla, C.J.

In our opinion the expression judgment as used in Clause (1) of Article 133 means a final declaration or determination of the rights of the parties, and does not include a judgment given by the Court in a consultative or advisory capacity. It follows there fore that this application is incompetent, and it is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.

Shri W.O Holdsworth ... v. The State Of U.P Thr...