Skip to content


Motilal Vs. Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, and Another. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petition No. 3056 of 1977
Reported in[1978]113ITR461(P& H)
AppellantMotilal
RespondentSecretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, and Another.
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the..........conferred upon him by the commercial university, delhi. on coming to know of this fact, the income-tax commissioner, patiala, cancelled the licence of the petitioner. the grievance made is that, at the time when the petitioner sought enrolment, he did not conceal any fact and informed the authorities of the nature of the degree obtained by him and in these circumstances his licence should not have been cancelled.the university, if at all it can be called an university which granted the degree to the petitioner, has not been constituted under an act of parliament. it is only registered as a company under the indian companies act. no evidence has been brought on the record to show that the degrees awarded by it have been recognised by any university or by the university grants.....
Judgment:

The petitioner was enrolled as an income-tax practitioner on the basis of a degree of Bachelor of Commerce conferred upon him by the Commercial University, Delhi. On coming to know of this fact, the Income-tax Commissioner, Patiala, cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The grievance made is that, at the time when the petitioner sought enrolment, he did not conceal any fact and informed the authorities of the nature of the degree obtained by him and in these circumstances his licence should not have been cancelled.

The university, if at all it can be called an university which granted the degree to the petitioner, has not been constituted under an Act of Parliament. It is only registered as a company under the Indian Companies Act. No evidence has been brought on the record to show that the degrees awarded by it have been recognised by any university or by the University Grants Commission or by the Central Government. Apparently, the licence was granted to the petitioner under a mistake of law and the Commissioner of Income-tax, while cancellation his licence, has only rectified an earlier mistake. He was well within his rights to do so. In any event, no injustice, much less manifest injustice, is shown to have been resulted because of the cancellation of this licence. In the circumstances, we cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. This petition is accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //