BHARAT NIDHI LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Section 60 of the Indian Income Tax Act of 1922, a statutory Notification No. 47 dated 9th December, 1933, has been issued granting exemption from payment of super-tax under the circumstances specified in it. A detailed reference to this notification will be made hereinafter.

(2.) On 9th June, 1961, the petitioner-company applied to the Central Board of Revenue for exemption from payment of super-tax in pursuance of the aforesaid notification. This has been refused by the Central Board of Revenue by its order dated 30th December, 1963 (annexure "F"), on the grounds that all the conditions laid down in the aforesaid notification had not been satisfied by the petitioner-company. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order on the grounds, inter alia, that the order of the Board is not a speaking order and does not give reasons for refusing the exemption and, secondly, that, on the merits of the case, the order is not sustainable in law.

(3.) The writ petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents and a counter-affidavit has been filed by Shri Jagdish Chand Kalra, Deputy Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, dated 27th May, 1967. In this counter-affidavit, the contentions raised in the writ petition have been contested and reasons have been given as to why the application of the petitioner was refused. In substance, in the counter-affidavit, it has been urged that the petitioner-company had failed to satisfy condition No. (ii) mentioned in the statutory notification and so the application was refused. With regard to the non-speaking nature of the order, it has been contended that the company did not co-operate with the Director of Inspection in arriving at the findings with regard to the requirements of the notification and that the matter had been thoroughly discussed orally between the Director of Inspection and the representatives of the company and the company knew the reasons for the rejection and, Therefore, it was not necessary to incorporate them in the impugned order or formally communicate them to the petitioner. A rejoinder to the return has been filed on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition and controverting the contentions of the respondents.