| Case ID |
176b65bf-5cb6-4e9c-8700-ce654177f7ad |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS WRIT PETITION No. 1291 OF 1959 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 13, 1965 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court upheld the validity of the Gift-tax Act, stating that a tax on gifts of lands and buildings is distinctly different from a tax on the ownership or enjoyment of those lands and buildings. The court found that Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the Gift-tax Act under Article 248 of the Constitution, as the subject of taxation on gifts was not explicitly mentioned in the State List. Therefore, the impugned legislation was validly passed by Parliament. The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the gift tax could be imposed and the legislation was constitutional, as it fell within the ambit of Article 248 read with entry 97 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Shyam Sunder Chowdhry v. Gift-tax Officer, the Allahabad High Court addressed the constitutionality of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The case revolved around the contention that the Central Parliament lacked the authority to legislate on gifts of land and buildings, which the petitioner argued fell under the State Legislature's purview as per entry 49 of List II in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The court clarified that there is a clear distinction between a tax on the ownership of land and buildings and a tax on gifts of those properties. It emphasized that the Central Parliament has the power to legislate on matters not enumerated in the State or Concurrent Lists, thereby validating the Gift-tax Act. This ruling reinforced the legislative authority of Parliament in matters of taxation and clarified the scope of the Gift-tax Act concerning property transactions. Key phrases for SEO include 'Gift-tax Act validity', 'Parliament legislative competence', 'tax on gifts of land', and 'constitutional law in India'. The decision is significant for understanding the legislative powers over taxation in the context of property transfers and the nuances of the Indian Constitution. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
JAGDISH SAHAI,
BROOME
|
| Lawyers |
G.N. Kunzru,
A.N. Kaul,
S.P. Gupta,
R.L. Gulati
|
| Petitioners |
Shyam Sunder Chowdhry
|
| Respondents |
Gift-tax Officer
|
| Citations |
1967 SLD 572 = (1967) 66 ITR 74
|
| Other Citations |
Attorney-General for Province of Ontario v. Attorney-General for Dominion of Canada [1912] AC 571,
Basudeva v. Rex AIR 1949 ALL. 513,
Charles I. Dawson, Attorney-General of the State of Kentucky v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Company (65 L.ED. 638) (Mad.),
S. Dhandapani v. Addl. GTO, [1963], 49 ITR 712 (Mad.),
Hari Krishan Bhargav v. UOI [1966] 59 ITR 243 (SC),
DH Hazareth v. GTO [1962] 45 ITR 194 (Mys.),
Mst. Gaindi v. UOI [1964] 54 ITR 632 (Punj.),
Joseph v. GTO [1962] 45 ITR 66 (Ker.),
Jugal Kishore v. WTO [1962] 44 ITR 94 (All.) (FB),
Jupudi Sesharatnam v. GTO, Palacole [1960] 38 ITR 93 (AP),
Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia AIR 1947 PC 72,
Narasaraopeta Electric Corporation Ltd. v. State of Madras AIR 1951 Mad. 979,
Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd v. State of UP AIR 1960 All.136,
Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 251,
Ralla Ram v. Province of East Punjab AIR 1949 FC81,
MPV Sundararamier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1958] SCR 1422,
Tan Bug Taim v. Collector of Bombay AIR 1946 Bom.216
|
| Laws Involved |
Gift-tax Act, 1958
|
| Sections |
1
|