HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Hyderabad v. S.R.V.G. Press Company, Kurnool
Civil Appeal No. 270 of 1960
[1962] 1 SCR 232 ·
Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940: Schedule I, rule 12 · Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939: sections 10 and 15
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by J. C. Shah, J. · J. L. Kapur, J. · J. C. Shah, J.
Assessment years: Chargeable accounting period ending 4 November 1945
01 · Facts of the case
The oil-and-cake manufacturer consistently paid sales tax on provisional assessment based on the prior year, with later adjustment. Although that method had been accepted for income tax and earlier excess-profits-tax periods, the officer disallowed part of the payment for the chargeable period as unnecessary (SCR pp.232-235; PDF pp.1-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Rule 12 required a commercial-expediency judgment, not a hindsight or purely legalistic test. The assessment created an enforceable payment obligation backed by recovery and penalty provisions. The business was not required to litigate the validity of the provisional method before treating the payment as necessary; later retrospective validation reinforced the conclusion (SCR pp.235-238; PDF pp.4-7).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The High Court's negative answer was upheld and Revenue's appeal was dismissed with costs (SCR p.238; PDF p.7).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee: the full sales tax actually paid under provisional assessment was deductible for the historical excess-profits-tax computation (SCR pp.237-238; PDF pp.6-7).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: judge necessity at the time of payment and through commercial practice. A compulsory tax payment does not become unreasonable merely because the assessment method is later challenged, but current deduction and accrual rules require separate verification (based on SCR pp.236-238; PDF pp.5-7).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 7-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and seven-page count match catalogue asset 1962_1_232_238; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated case identity, bench, statutory issue and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus or reviewed archive.
Statutory scope
The ruling applies the repealed Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 and historical Madras sales-tax machinery; it is not current-law clearance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.