HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Sirpur Paper Mill Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Hyderabad
Civil Appeal Nos. 2269 and 2270 of 1966
[1971] 1 SCR 304 ·
Wealth-tax Act, 1957: sections 7(2), 13 and 25 · Constitution: Article 136
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · J. C. Shah, J. · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1957-58, 1958-59
01 · Facts of the case
For two wealth-tax years the company sought depreciation adjustments on plant, buildings and machinery using income-tax rates. The Wealth Tax Officer relied on certified balance-sheet asset values under section 7(2), and the appellate authority upheld that treatment. Instead of an appeal to the Tribunal, the company sought section 25 revision. The Commissioner rejected those applications after repeatedly consulting the Board for directions, prompting these special-leave appeals.
Source: SCR p. 305 / PDF p. 2
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 25 conferred quasi-judicial power requiring impartial consideration, natural justice and an independent decision. Administrative instructions under section 13 did not authorise the Board to dictate that determination. The file entries showed repeated requests for instructions, including whether the revisions could be rejected, and an absence of independent judgment. The Court exceptionally entertained the direct challenge because this important question of principle arose; it did not encourage bypassing ordinary appeal and reference procedures generally.
Source: SCR pp. 305-307 / PDF pp. 2-4
03 · Judicial decision
The Commissioner’s order was set aside. The revision applications were to be heard and disposed of according to law without influence from Board instructions or directions. The company received costs in the Supreme Court, with one hearing fee. The underlying asset-value/depreciation entitlement was not finally determined.
Source: SCR p. 307 / PDF p. 4
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the company for a lawful independent reconsideration, not a final allowance of its substantive claim. The revisional authority remains responsible for deciding the merits after hearing and applying law.
Source: SCR pp. 306-307 / PDF pp. 3-4
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: preserve communications and order-sheet entries if they show external dictation of an adjudicatory outcome. Distinguish administrative guidance from a statutory authority’s duty to decide a particular dispute independently and fairly. This case does not supply automatic direct access to the Supreme Court or a universal proposition that all departmental circulars are non-binding; statutory context and later authorities require separate examination.
Source: SCR pp. 305-307 / PDF pp. 2-4
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Four-page SCR scan. Full judicial body and disposition reviewed; editorial headnote distinguished from reasoning. Unnumbered judicial text; SCR/PDF page pinpoints supplied.
- Full source judicial text read; exact original bytes match consolidated index SHA-256. Public mirror scan, not certified court copy.
- Distinct from published Sirpur 1999 superannuation decision. Here the tax is wealth tax and the question is independence in revision.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory regime and assessment facts control. No automatic Income-tax Act, 2025 crosswalk or present-law certification.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Comprehensive subsequent judicial treatment and current-law applicability remain unverified; no current-law assurance or citator clearance.
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.