SATISH YASHWANT KULKARNI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.C. Dharmadhikari - We have heard Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) By this Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the proviso to Rule 9A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as ultra vires the main provisions of the Act and particularly the power to make Rules conferred by Sec. 295, Sections 4 and 37 as well. Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar would urge that what is not chargeable to tax is brought to tax by relying on this proviso. That is to nullify the effect of the judgment of this Court that these subsidies are in the nature of capital receipts. Now the language of the proviso is relied upon and to the detriment of the petitioner.

(3.) Ordinarily, we are reluctant to examine the constitutional validity of any provision unless it is really necessary and in the facts and circumstances to render any decision on that question or issue. Further, where interest of justice demands any adjudication to that issue. The third and more relevant aspect is, if justice can be rendered without examining any larger issue or wider question, essentially on facts, then, the Court must refrain from expressing any opinion. That would be purely academic.