HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Hari Krishna Bhargav v. Union of India and Another
Writ Petition No. 17 of 1965
[1966] 2 SCR 22 ·
Income-tax Act, 1961: Chapter XXII-A and historical annuity-deposit provisions · Constitution of India: articles 14, 19, 31, 246; Seventh Schedule, List I, entries 82 and 97
Holding and result. The annuity-deposit scheme was within Parliament’s taxing power, was neither colourable legislation nor invalid borrowing, and its age-based exemption was not discriminatory; the article 32 petition was dismissed with costs.
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Five-judge bench; majority judgment delivered by J. C. Shah, J., with M. Hidayatullah, J. concurring separately. · P. B. Gajendragadkar, C.J. · K. N. Wanchoo, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
Assessment years: 1964-65
01 · Facts of the case
For assessment year 1964-65 the petitioner faced an annuity-deposit demand of Rs.1,800. He challenged the scheme as compulsory lending beyond entry 82, colourable legislation, confiscatory and discriminatory, including because persons aged seventy or more were exempt.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The majority held that a tax scheme could include compulsory deposit machinery ancillary to income taxation and, alternatively, Parliament had residuary competence. Severity did not itself establish colourable legislation. The age exemption was a reasonable classification. Hidayatullah, J. treated the deposit as an alternative form within the tax itself rather than executive borrowing.
Source: Primary judgment: reasoning
03 · Judicial decision
The scheme was constitutionally valid, within legislative competence and not invalidated by its compulsory character or the exemption for older assessees.
Source: Primary judgment: holdings
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Writ petition dismissed with costs.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: when testing tax-linked deposits, separate the source of legislative power, the scheme’s connection to the tax, and equality classification. Harsh economic effect alone did not prove constitutional invalidity in this historical scheme.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 12-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected, from the reported opening page through the operative disposition.
- Exact catalogue SHA-256 and 12-page count verified; every page was read and visually inspected.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory provisions are described as they appeared in the report. Verify the current enactment, amendments and later judicial treatment before reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No comprehensive later-treatment or present-law clearance is represented. The note reports the historical statutory text and result in this primary report only.
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 the identified primary report and has not been represented as independently human-reviewed.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, governing statutory version and subsequent judicial treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court's holding, and no current-law clearance is claimed.