http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: DEVANAGERE COTTON MILLS LTD.DEVANAGERE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGAAND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/03/1961

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA DAS, S.K. KAPUR, J.L. HIDAYATULLAH, M.

CITATION:  1961 AIR 1441            1962 SCR  (1) 556

ACT: Cotton   Cess-Assessment-Notice  by   Deputy   Commissioner- Validity--Collector, Meaning of--Interpretation of  Statute- Indian  Cotton  Cess Act, 1923 (14 of 1923),  ss.  2(a),  7- General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), s. 2(11).

HEADNOTE: The appellants declined to carry out the requisition by  the Deputy Commissioner to submit certain returns on the  ground that  tinder the Indian Cotton Cess Act, 1923, which Act  Se came applicable to the State of Mysore by the Part B  States Laws  Act, 1951, the Collector alone could assess  the  cess and  the Deputy Commissioner not being a "Collector"  within the meaning of the Act and not being an officer appointed by the  Central  Government  to  perform  the  duties  of   the Collector   under  the  Act,  the  demand  for  return   was "unconstitutional".  The case of the appellant was that  the General  Clauses Act, 1897, was not extended by the  Part  B States  Laws  Act,  1951,  to  the  State  of  Mysore,  and, therefore,  the definition of "Collector" under the  General Clauses  Act could not be requisitioned in aid to  interpret the expression "Collector" used in the Act. Held,  that the effect of S. 3 of the General  Clauses  Act, 1897,  was  to incorporate it as it were  an  interpretation section  in all the Central Acts and Regulations made  after the  commencement  of the General Clauses Act.   Whenever  a Central  Act  or Regulation made after March II,  1897,  was enacted,  the General Clauses Act became statutorily a  part thereof  and by its own force applied to the  interpretation of  every such enactment.  Its vitality did not depend  upon any territorial extension. Section  2(a) of the Indian Cotton Cess Act, 1923, does  not really   give  the  definition  of  "Collector",   and   for determining  who the Collector under the Act is, one has  to go to the General Clauses Act.

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1960. Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 12, 1957,  of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 15 of 1956. 557, M.   C.   Setalvad,  Attorney-General  for  India,   V.   L. Narasimhamoorty,  S. N. Andley, J. S. Dadachanji,  Rameshwar Nath and P.  L. Vohra, for the appellants. R.   Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen, for the respondents. 1961.  March 24.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH,  J.-With  a view to enable him to assess  cotton  cess payable by the appellants under the Indian Cotton Cess  Act, 1923-hereinafter  called  the Act the  Deputy  Commissioner, District  Chitradurga, Mysore State purporting  to  exercise powers under s. 6 of the Act called upon the managing agents of  the  appellants  by letter dated January  13,  1956,  to submit in the prescribed form a statement showing the  total quantity  of  cotton consumed or processed in  the  factory. ’The  appellants declined to carry out the  requisition  and filed  a petition in the High Court of Mysore for a writ  of mandamus,  prohibition or other appropriate writ,  direction or  order restraining the Deputy  Commissioner,  Chitradurga and  the State of Mysore from "collecting assessments  under the  Indian Cotton Cess; Act XIV of 1923" in enforcement  of the order dated January 13, 1956. The  sole ground urged in support of the petition  was  that the  appellants were bound to furnish returns under the  Act to  the Collector who alone could assess the cess,  and  the Deputy  Commissioner  not  being a  "Collector"  within  the meaning of the Act and not being an officer appointed by the Central  Government to perform the duties of  the  Collector under    the    Act,   the   demand    for    returns    was "unconstitutional".   The High Court rejected  the  petition and  against  that  order, this  appeal  is  preferred  with certificate of fitness granted by the High Court. The  area in which the mill of the appellants is  situ.  ate was  originally  part of the Indian State  of  Mysore.   The State  of Mysore became a Part B State within the  Union  of India on the promulgation of the Constitution on January 26, 1950.  The Act was one of the many enactments of the  Indian Legislature applied 588 to the State of Mysore by the "Part B States Laws Act" 3  of 1951.  The Act provides for the levy of a cess on cotton and for  effectuating that purpose imposes by s. 6 a  duty  upon the  owner  of  a mill to submit to  the  Collector  monthly returns  of cotton consumed or processed in the  mill.   The authority to assess cess is by s. 7 of the Act vested in the "Collector" which expression in the Act means "in  reference to cotton consumed in a mill, the Collector of the  district in which the mill is situated or any other officer appointed by  the  Central  Government  to perform  the  duties  of  a Collector  under  this Act".  The powers  of  the  Collector under the Act can therefore be exercised by the Collector of the district in which the mill is situate or by the  officer appointed by the Central Government to perform the duties of a   Collector.   It  is  common  ground  that  the   Central Government  has  not issued an order appointing  the  Deputy Commissioners  in the Mysore area to exercise  powers  under the  Act.  The power to assess cotton ceases in  the  Mysore State  area can therefore be exercised by the Collector  and no   other  officer.   The  expression  "Collector  of   the district"  which  is a component of the first  part  of  the definition  is  not  defined in the Act.   But  the  General Clauses  Act X of 1897 defines "Collector" as meaning "in  a Presidency town, the Collector of Calcutta, Madras or Bombay

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

as  the  case may be, and elsewhere  the  Chief  Officer-in- charge  of the revenue administration of a  district".   The revenue  administration of a district under the Mysore  Land Revenue Code is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner and  he is the chief officer-in-charge of the revenue administration of  a  district.   The Deputy Commissioner  is  therefore  a Collector within the meaning of the General Clauses Act. Counsel for the appellants however contends that the General Clauses Act X of 1897 was not extended by the Part B  States Laws Act to the State of Mysore and therefore the definition of  "Collector"  under  the General Clauses  Act  cannot  be requisitioned in aid to interpret the expression "Collector" used  in the Act.  But the argument proceeds upon a  fallacy as to the 559 true  nature  of the General Clauses Act.  By s. 3  of  that Act,  in  all Central Acts and Regulations made,  after  the commencement  of the General Clauses Act,’ unless  there  is anything  repugnant in the subject or context,  the  various expressions therein set out shall have the meanings ascribed to  them by that Act.  The effect of s. 3 is to  incorporate it  as it were as an interpretation section in  all  Central Acts  and  Regulations made after the  commencement  of  the General Clauses Act.  Whenever the Central Act or Regulation made  after March 11, 1897, is enacted, the General  Clauses Act becomes statutorily a part thereof and by its own  force it applies to the interpretation of every such enactment. Its vitality does not depend upon any territorial extension. Existence  of a definition of the expression "Collector"  in the  Act  in  s. 2(a) is not necessarily  indicative  of  an intention  that the General Clauses Act is not to  apply  to the interpretation of that expression used in that Act.  The first  part  of s. 2, cl. (a) of the Act is in truth  not  a definition  at all: it merely states that the  Collector  of the  district in which the mill is situate is the  Collector for  the  purpose,%  of the Act.  For  determining  who  the Collector is, one has to go to the General Clauses Act.   It is said that bodily importing the definition of  "Collector" in  the General Clauses Act into s. 2(a) of the Act  results in  tautology,  because  by the definition  in  the  General Clauses Act a Collector (outside the Presidency towns) is an officer-in-charge   of  the  revenue  administration  of   a district.  But by the definition in the General Clauses Act, the  quality  of  the power and the duties  of  the  officer concerned are indicated whereas by the use of the expression "of the district" in the definition of Collector in s.  2(a) of   the   Act,  the  officer  in-charge  of   the   revenue administration of the district within whose area the mill is situate   is  indicated.   There  is  in  our  judgment   no tautology, and no ground for not applying the definition  of Collector  in the General Clauses Act to the  interpretation of the Act. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. 560