LAWS(P&H)-1952-3-4

MAHABIR PARSHAD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB.

Decided On March 17, 1952
MAHABIR PARSHAD Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNJAB. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL moves for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, in regard to an order passed on the June 6, 1948.

(2.) THE facts of this case are that in regard to an assessment order for the year 1944 -45 a penalty of Rs. 1,200 was imposed on the petitioner under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act which on appeal to the Assistant Appellate Commissioner was reduced to Rs. 900, but it appears that the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Punjab, was received by the petitioner after the the November 27, 1946; what exact date it was is not stated in the petition. Under Section 33A(2) of the Income Tax Act the petitioner filed a revision petition on the November 26, 1947. On the June 6, 1948, the Commissioner dismissed the petition as being barred by time. On the June 24, 1948, the petitioner filed an application for review against the above order under Section 35 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner alleges that on order was passed on this application, and that on the April 8, 1951, he made another application stating that his previous application dated the June 24, had been mislaid. He referred in this new application to a judgment of the Madras High Court which has since been reported as Muthiah Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, in which the question of limitation was decided and prayed that his revision petition be restored and he be given a personal hearing. On the September 22, 1951, this application was dismissed on the ground that the previous order was correct. He has now come up with an application for a writ of mandamus.

(3.) THE order in regard to which he wishes a writ to issue is dated the June 6, 1948, and our power of issuing writs was conferred by the Constitution which came into force on the January 26, 1950. It has been held in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay, that the provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution have no retrospective effect and therefore it cannot affect an act which was done before operative only on and from the January 26, 1950, the powers conferred under Article 226 cannot affect orders which had already been passed, nor would this Court have the power to interfere with such orders. This view is consistent with the view taken by a large number of other High Courts.