MAHARAJAKUMARI MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India which was originally instituted by the former Ruler of the then Princely State of Mysore, and, which, after his death, is now being prosecuted by his legal representatives is directed against the Notification No. 266/F. No. 22/21/63-ITA-II dated 8th September 1971, issued by the Central Government, first respondent herein, purporting to delete petitioner's Palace at Mysore from the schedule to an earlier Notification No. 31-IT. Dated 14th May 1954, issued pursuant to clause (iii) of paragraph 15 of the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, by which the Palaces at Mysore alongwith two other Palaces of petitioner at Bangalore and Ootacamand respectively had come to be declared as Official residences of petitioner. By virtue of the said declaration of 14-5-1954 the income from the said three places were exempted from income-tax and super-tax and not includible in the total income or the total world income of then Ruler of Mysore. By the deletion purported in the notification of 8-9-1971 the Palace of the Mysore ceased to be recognised as official residence of the former Ruler and consequently income there from became exigible to income-tax and super-tax. This deletion is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Prior to the commencement of the Constitution of India, Petitioner was the Ruler of the then State of Mysore and after the then State of Mysore and after the commencement of the Constitution Mysore became a part B State in the Union of India. The Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the '1922 Act') was extended to the then part B State of Mysore with effect from 1st of April, 1950. Thereafter, s. 60A empowering the Central Government, to grant exemptions, if it is considered it necessary or expedient so to do for avoiding any hardship of anomaly or removing any difficulty arising as a result of the extension of the '1922 Act', inter-alia, to part B States, was introduced into the '1922 Act' Pursuant to and in exercise of the power vested by the said s. 60A, the Central Government promulgated part B States (Taxation Concessions) order, 1950. Paragraph-15 of that order reads :

(3.) We have heard Sri M. R. Lakshmikantharaje Urs, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. R. Rajashekara Murthy for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention that Annexure 'D' is bad in and without the authority of law, has urged the following grounds :