Tata Iron & Steel Company v. Chief Revenue Authority

Macleod, C.J:— This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918), sub-section 3 of section 51 is as follows:—

“The High Court upon the beating of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is rounded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, it the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of such judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to each judgment.”

2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause 39 of the Letters Patent.

3. The word ‘judgment’ in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than ill is used in the Code of Civil Procedure where it is defined as “the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order,” In the Letters Patent the term ‘judgment’ is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a abatement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in clause 15 it is stated that

“an appeal shall lie to the said High Court…from the judgment…of one Judge of the said High. Court, of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915): and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court tom the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges ace equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the eight of appeal tom other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to us. Our heirs or successors in Oar, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided,”

4. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word ‘judgment’ as used in clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.

5. Costs costs in the appeal.

Shah, J.:— I agree.

6. Rule made absolute.