REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

VYSYA RAJU BADRI NARAYANAMURTHY Appellant

V/S

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MARSHALL M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND. [REFERRED TO]
THE QUEEN V. ST. MARY WHITECHAPEL [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE IN KRISHNA RAO V. THIRD WEALTH TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR SALES OF MOTOR SPIRIT AND LUBRICANTS TAXATION ACT 1938 [REFERRED TO]
CAPE BRANDY SYNDICATE V. INLAND REVENUE COMMRS. [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH BAKSH SINGH V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADHYA PRADESH AND BHOPAL SM DAMAYANTI SAHNI PARTNER OF ISHWAR DAS SAHNI AND BROS VS. SODRA DEVI:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
RAJA JAGANNATH BAKSH SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAI RAMKRISHNA VS. STATE OF BIHAR IN BOTH THE APPEALLS [REFERRED TO]
PHILIP JOHN PLASKET THOMAS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
PATEL GORDHANDAS HARGOVINDAS VS. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]
OUDH SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
L JUGAL KISHORE VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER SPECIAL CIRCLE C WARD KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
N V SUBRAHMANYAM VS. ADDITIONAL WEALTH TAX OFFICER ELURU [REFERRED TO]
MAMMAD KEYI VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER CALICUT [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD VS. GORDHANDAS HARGOVANDAS [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIRPRASAD BADRIDAS VS. M S YAGNIKSECOND WEALTH-TAX OFFICERC-II WARDBOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL VS. PROVINCE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three references under Section 27 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act 1957, the main question for consideration is the constitutional validity of the Wealth Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). IN reference No. 42 of 1962 which deals with assessment to Wealth Tax for the year 1957-58 the further question for decision by this Court is whether the Act could have limited retrospective effect so as to apply to the wealth of an assessee for the previous year.

(2.) THE Act was passed by Parliament and brought into force with effect from 1-4-1957. THE statement of Objects and Reasons (see Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 28th March 1957, Part II, Section 2, page 132) reveals that the object of the Act is to impose an annual tax on the net wealth of individuals, Hindu Undivided families and companies.

(3.) AS regards infringement of fundamental rights the main argument of Mr. Narasaraju is that Article 19 (1) (f) is contravened and the provisions of the Act will not amount to a reasonable restriction in the interest of the public saved by Clause (5) of Article 19. The unreasonableness, according to him, arises in the following manner:

Click here to view full judgment.

VYSYARAJU BADRI NARAYANAMURTHY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address