http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SOUTHERN ROADWAYS PRIVATE LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/01/1962

BENCH:

ACT:      Income Tax-Development Rebate-Disallowance on office  appliances   and  transport   vehicles  If discriminatory-Income-tax Act,  1922 (11  of 1922) as amended  by the  Taxation Laws  (Amendment) Act (28 of 1960, s. 10(2) (vi-b) second proviso.

HEADNOTE:      The assessee  company owned  a fleet of buses and carried  on the  business  of  transport.  The income-tax officer  disallowed development  rebate on the  transport vehicles owned by the company as provided by  the second proviso to s. 10(2) (vi-b) of the  Income-tax Act. The company challenged the section  on  the  ground  that  the  said  proviso offends Art.  14 in  that it discriminates between machinery  which  is  office  appliances  or  road transport vehicles and other kinds of machinery. ^      Held,  that   there   is   nothing   in   the Constitution which  prevents the  Legislature from choosing the  objects  of  taxation  from  amongst various classes of machinery for purpose of giving development rebate.

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Petition No.  143  of 1961.      Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental rights.      S. Swaminathan and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioner.      K. N.  Rajagopala Sastri and P. D. Menon, for the respondents. 595      1962. January  16. The  Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KAPUR,J.-This is  a petition  by the assessee under Art.  32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of  the  second  proviso  to  s. 10(2) (vi-b)  of Income  tax Act introduced by The Taxation Laws  (Amendment) Act  (28 of  1960). The relevant section with the proviso is as follows:-           S. 10(1) "The tax shall be payable by an      assessee under the head "Profits and gains of      business, profession  or vocation" in respect      of the  profits or  gains  of  any  business,

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

    profession or vocation carried on by him.           (2)  Such  profits  or  gains  shall  be      computed   after    making   the    following      allowances, namely:      ............................................. ..........      ............................................. ..........           (vi-b) in  respect of machinery or plant      being new, which has been installed after the      31st day  of March, 1954, and which is wholly      used for the purposes of the business carried      on  by   the  assessee,   a  sum  by  way  of      development rebate  in respect of the year of      installation equivalent  to  twenty-five  per      cent of  the actual cost of such machinery or      plant to the assessee :           Provided that  no allowance  under  this      clause shall  be made  unless the particulars      prescribed for  the purpose  of  clause  (vi)      have  been   furnished  by  the  assessee  in      respect of such machinery or plant;           Provided further that no allowance under      this clause  shall be  made in respect of any      machinery or  plant which  consist of  office      appliances or road transport vehicles."      The petitioner  is a limited company with its registered office  at  Madurai  in  the  State  of Madras 596 which owns  a  fleet  of  buses  and  lorries  and carries on the business of transport In respect of assessment year  1960-61 it  claimed a development rebate on  all its  plants and machinery including business. The  Income tax  Officer disallowed  the claim of  rebate on  transport vehicles  under the proviso above  quoted and computed the tax payable without such rebate. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the proviso offends Art. 14 in that it  discriminates between  machinery which is office appliance  or road  transport vehicles  and other kind of machinery. It is difficult to accept such a  contention because there is nothing in the Constitution which  prevents the  legislature from choosing  the  object  of  taxation  from  amongst various classes  of machinery  for the  purpose of giving development  rebate. The  Constitution does not prohibit  any such  classification  which  has been made in the pressnt case.      The petition  is wholly  without merit and is therefore dismissed  and the  rule is  discharged. The  petitioner   will  pay   the  costs   of  the respondent.                                Petition dismissed.