Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
DEVANAGERE COTTON MILLS LTD.DEVANAGERE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGAAND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
24/03/1961
BENCH:
SHAH, J.C.
BENCH:
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.
JUDGMENT:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
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.
560