A mill refused to file returns demanded by the Deputy Commissioner under the Indian Cotton Cess Act, contending he was not the Collector empowered to assess cess. The court held the General Clauses Act definition of Collector applied by its own force and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I96I
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962]
DEVANAGERE COTTON MILLS LTD.
March 24.
DEVANAGERE
v.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH,
J. c. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
Cotton Gess-Assessment-Notice by Deputy CommissionerValidity-Collector, Meaning of-Interpretation of Statute-Indian Cotton Cess Act, r923 (r4 of r923), ss. 2(a), 7-General Clauses Act, r897 (ro of r897), s.-2(II). ·
The appellants declined to carry out the requisition by the Deputy Commissioner to submit certain returns on the ground that under 'the Indian Cotton Cess Act, r923, which Act became applicable to the State of Mysore by the Part B States Laws Act, r95r, 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, i897, was not extended by the Part B States Laws Act, r95r, to the State of Mysore, and, therefore, the definition of "Collector" under the General Clanses 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, i897, 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, r897, was enacted, the General Clauses Act became. statutoril)I a part thereof and by its own force applied to the mterpretat10n of every such enactment. Its vitality did not depend upon any territorial exten- sion.
Section z(a) of the Indian Cotton Cess Act, r923, 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.
CrVIL 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.
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 557
J ,.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, V. L. '96 ' N arasimhamoorty, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Devanagm cotton Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellants. Mills Ltd. R. Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen, for the respon- Devanagere dents. v. The Deputy Com~ 1961. March 24. The Judgment of Judgment of of the Court was Court was missione" Chit>a-Chit>a- delivered by by du,ga <>· Anothor
Shah J.
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 Actthe 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 situate 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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962]
| _196I _ D --ctt evanagere o o MillsLtd. Devanagere v. The_Deputy Com- missioner, Chiera- _durga_S- Another __ shahJ. |
totheStateofMysore bythe"PartB States Laws Act" 3of1951. The Act provides for the levyofa n • . cess on cotton and for effectuatmgthatpurpose im- poses bys.6 adutyupontheownerofa milltosub- mit to the Collector monthly returnsofcotton consum. edorprocessed in the mill. Theauthorityto assess cess isbys.7ofthe Act vestedinthe"Collector"' h'h · ·thA t w c t w ic express10n m e c means m re1erence o cotton consumed in a mill,theCollectorofthe district in whichthemill is situated oranyother officer appointedbytheCentral Government to performthe dutiesofa Collector under this Act".Thepowersof theCollector under the Act can therefore be exercised bytheCollectorofthe district in which the mill is situate orbytheofficer appointedbytheCentral Government to performthedutiesofa Collector.It is common groundthattheCentral Government has notissued an order appointingt-heDeputy Commis- sioners in the Mysoreareato exercise powersunder theAct. The powertoassess cotton cess inthe MysoreStatearea can therefore be exercised bythe Collector and no other officer. The expression "Collec- torofthedistrict" which is a componentofthe first partof the definition is not defined intheAct.Butthe General Clauses Act Xof1897defines "Collector" as meaning"ina Presidency town,theCollectorofCal- cutta, Madras or Bombay as the case may be,and elsewhere the Chief Officer-in-chargeoftherevenue administrationofa district". The revenue adminis- trationofa district under the MysoreLandRevenue Code isentrustedto theDeputyCommissionerandhe isthechief officer-in-chargeofthe revenue adminis- trationofa district. The Deputy Commissioner is therefore a Collector within the meaningoftheGene. ralClauses Act. Counsel for the appellants however contendsthat the General Clauses Act Xof1897wasnotextended by thePartB States Laws Act totheS1;ateofMysore and therefore the definitionof"Collector"underthe General Clauses Act cannot be requisitioned inaidto interpret the expression "Collector" used in the Act. Butthe argument proceeds upon a fal!acyastothe |
|---|
._ -
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
559
,
true nature of the General Clauses Act. By s. 3 of r96r that Act, in all Central Acts and Regulations made D evanagere -- c otton after the commencement of the General Clauses Act, Mills Ltd. unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or Devanagere context, the various expressions therein set out shall v. have the meanings ascribed to them by that Act. The The .Deputy Com- effect of s. 3 is to incorporate it as it were as an inter- md •ssione;, ACh•tra- pre t t a 10n. sec t" 10n rn a · JI C en t ra 1 A c s t an d R egu at10ns 1 · urga _ ~ nother made after the commencement of the General Clauses Shah J. 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 purposes 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 officerin-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.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Deputy Commissioner of a district is a "Collector" within the meaning of the Indian Cotton Cess Act, 1923, entitled to assess cotton cess.
Whether the General Clauses Act, 1897 definition of "Collector" applies to Central Acts extended to Part B States without territorial extension of that Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Devanagere Cotton Mills Ltd.
The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga
The State of Mysore
S. K. Das
J. L. Kapur
M. Hidayatullah
J. C. Shah
T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
