Devanagere Cotton Mills Ltd.
Devanagere Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga & ANR [1961] INSC 116
(24 March 1961)
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.
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 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.
Back