HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Ramjilal v Income-tax Officer, Mohindargarh
Petition No. 135 of 1950
[1951] SCR 127 ·
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 31(1) as then in force, 32 and 265 · PEPSU General Provisions (Administration) Ordinance XVI of 2005, section 3
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench · Harilal Kania CJI · Saiyid Fazl Ali J. · Patanjali Sastri J. · B. K. Mukherjea J. · S. R. Das J.
01 · Facts of the case
Following the integration of the covenanting States into PEPSU, Patiala’s income-tax law was extended to the Union while proceedings already pending in the former States remained governed by their existing laws. The petitioner, carrying on business in territory formerly in Nabha, challenged income-tax assessment through Article 32. He relied on lower rates applicable to pending assessments in Kapurthala and objected to taxation of income accruing before the extension.
Source: Primary report: SCR 129–134
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Preserving pending proceedings under existing laws was a reasonable classification arising from the circumstances of integration. Nabha had no corresponding income-tax law or pending assessment proceedings, so the asserted comparison did not establish unequal treatment. The Court distinguished the constitutional protection against unauthorised taxation under Article 265 from the then Article 31(1). Article 265 was outside Part III and its alleged infringement alone could not sustain this Article 32 petition. The Court expressly declined to determine the statutory construction and retrospective-taxation arguments, leaving appropriate other proceedings open.
Source: Primary report: SCR 134–137
03 · Judicial decision
The petition was dismissed with costs because infringement of Article 14 or the then Article 31(1) was not established. The legality of the allegedly retrospective assessment was not decided.
Source: Primary report: SCR 137
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue on dismissal of the constitutional petition; assessment legality left undecided.
Source: Primary report: SCR 137
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Separate an equality challenge from a statutory-authority challenge and identify the appropriate remedy. This is a historical constitutional ruling under the then Article 31(1); it does not validate retrospective taxation on the merits or establish immunity of tax action from judicial review. No present-day Article 300A or writ-remedy clearance is asserted.
Source: Primary report: SCR 136–137
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
All 11 PDF pages, SCR 127–137. Filename starts 128, but second PDF page is printed SCR 128 and first is the opening page of the report. No adjacent judgment text.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory and constitutional text only; current statutory equivalence and subsequent treatment are not cleared.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-18. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been comprehensively checked.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from an identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.