In any case so far as immunity from taxation of the income from personal property of the Rulers of the Native States is con~erned this is now concluded by a decision of this Court in the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Andhra Pradesh v. H.E.H. Mir D Osman Ali Bahadur('). In that case the question directly arose as to whether the Ruler of the Hyderabad State prior to 26th January '50 could claim immunity from taxation under interna• tional Jaw, namely whether the assessee enjoyed immunity from taxation under the Act in respect of income .which accrued or arose to him, and which was received by him upto 26th January 1950. The learned .Advocate for the revenue had contended E that under the International law, a foreign sovereign was not immune from taxation in respect of his private properties situated in the Taxing State; .even if there was such an immunity under the international Jaw, the assessee being under the suzerainty or the paramountcy of the British Crown, had never enjoyed the status of a sovereign as understood in the international law and, F therefore, was not governed by that law; and that in any event, as on January 26, 19 50, the date when he became liable to tax, he was no longer a sovereign and therefore he could not claim exemption under the international law. Respondent's Advocate claimed that the assessee was not liable to Income-tax on the ground that under the Act, income-tax was charged on. the c, assessee's income received during the accounting year and that as during the accounting year the assessee was a ruling chief, he was exempt from taxation under the international law. He argued that under the international law, as understood by English Courts, a foreign sovereign was exempt from taxation, that the said interpretation of the law had become the common law c;>f England and that the said common law was the law of India -. H before the Constitution and it continued to have force thereafter by reason of Article 372.
