High CourtDivision BenchAppeal dismissed

Union of India v. U.P. State Ware Housing Corporation

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 455 of 1976

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • M. M. Punchhi
  • S. C. Agrawal
Judgment Date
1990-10-31
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Union of India
  • Anr.

Respondents

  • U.P. State Ware Housing Corporation

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • B.B. Ahuja
  • • Ms. A. Subhashini

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sheil Sethi

Case Synopsis & Summary

The dispute concerns whether the U.P. State Ware Housing Corporation, a statutory body created under the Ware Housing Corporations Act, 1962, is entitled to exemption under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for income derived from letting its godowns and warehouses. The Income Tax Officer had demanded advance tax for the Assessment Year 1974-75 on the grounds that rental income was not exempt. The Allahabad High Court quashed the notice, accepting the assessee’s exemption claim, and the Revenue appealed by certificate. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the exemption. It articulated a three-limbed test for eligibility under Section 10(29): (i) the entity must be an authority constituted under any law; (ii) the authority must be constituted for marketing of commodities; and (iii) the exemptable income must be from letting godowns or warehouses used for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities. The Court held that the UP State Ware Housing Corporation is a creature of law under the 1962 Act, and, under Section 24(d), acts as an agent facilitating marketing. The income in question falls within the exempted category, and the assessee fulfilled all tests. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed with no costs.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Income Tax Act, 1961, s.10(29)Ware Housing Corporations Act, 1962, s.24(d)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Creature of law
  • Artificial person

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the UP State Ware Housing Corporation qualifies for exemption under Section 10(29) because it is an authority constituted under law (Ware Housing Corporations Act, 1962), it is an authority for marketing of commodities, and its exempt income arises from letting godowns/warehouses used for storage and facilitating marketing. They emphasized the statutory framework (Sections 24(d)) showing agency for marketing and the business-like elements of its activity.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argued that the corporation indeed operates under law as a statutory body, and its activities as an agent for marketing commodities bring its income within the exemption; the High Court’s analysis supported this view, finding the three tests satisfied and disclaiming any contrary interpretation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Union of India v. U.P. State Ware Housing Corporation and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

UNION OF INDIA A!~m_ ANR. _v._ U.P. STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION OCTOBER 31, 1990 [M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] _Income Tax Act, 1961-Section_ _10(29)-Exemption-Tests-_ _Whether rental income derived from godowns and ware-house· of U. P._ _State Ware Housing Corporation exempted._ The Income Tax Officer required the U-P. State Ware Housing Corporation, a creature of the Ware Housing Corporations Act, 1962, to pay a sum of money as advance tax for the Assessment Year 1974-75, taking the view that rental income derived by the assessee-Respondent · from its godown and ware-houses was not exempted. The claim of exemption under secton 10(29) of the Income Tax Act of the assessee having been repeatedly rejected by the Appellants, it tiled a writ petition in the High Court challenging the notice. The High Court quashed the notice, allowing the case of the assessee-Respondent. In the appeal by the certificate the Revenue-Appellants assailed the view of the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, A B ### c D E HELD: 1. The assessee would be entitled to exemption, if (I) it is F an authority constituted under any law; (ii) it is an authority constituted for marketing of commodities; (iii) the exeinptable income is in respect of letting of godowns or ware-houses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities. [S2SD-E] 2. Plain reading of Section 10(29) makes it evident that the autOO- G rity must be constituted under any law for the time being in force, which In other words means that it should be a creature of law. As an artificial person, it should be clothed with a personality ordained by law:(S2SG] ' 3. In the in'stant case, the f'lt'St test was proved that the assessee H 523 524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. A was an authority under the Ware Rousing Corporations Act, 1962. [525Fj 4. The second test requiring the authority to be constituted for marketing of commodities is also fully satisfied by Section 24( d) of the Ware Housing Corporations Act, 1962. The activities of the assessee as an agent wer" the activities facilitating the marketing of comB modities, which have i1 business element and the second test was also established. [526B-C] 5. The third test: with regard to the exemptable Income being In respect of letting of godowns or ware-houses ·for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities presents no difficulty becauk C it stands undisputed that the Income derived by the assessee was from letting of godowns or •ware-houses. The assessee having fulfilled all the tests was rightly entitled to the exemption as claimed. [5260-E] D E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 455 of 1976. From the Judgment and Order dated 30th November, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 6122of 1973. - B.B. Ahuja and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants. Sheil Sethi for the Respondent. 1 [The following Order oHhe Court ][was ][delivered: ] ### ' ''This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and F order dated 30.11.1973 of Allahabad High Court at Allahabad· in Ci vi!' Miscellaneous Writ· Petition No. 6122 of 1973 whereby U.P.· State Ware Housing Corporation, the respondent herein, was granted exemption as envisaged under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. G ·The U.P. State Ware Housing Corporation is a creature if the Ware Housing Corporations Act, 1962. The Income Tax Officer, Lucknow, reqmred the respondent to pay a - sum of money as advance •• tax for the Assessment Year 1974-75. The view of the Income Tax Officer throughout in the previous years was that rentral ·income derived by the assessee from its godowns and warehouses was not H exempt from income tax. The claim of the assessee having repeatedly U.0.1. _v._ U.P. STATE .525 been _rejected it thought it proper and did file a writ petition in. the High Court of Allahabad. challenging the notice. The High Court quashed the notice. The view of the High Court has been assailed here by the R.evenue. A The ~!aim of the assessee is based ·o~ .Section IO (29) ·of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It provides:· . B Section 10 "Fo.~ computing the total income of previous year.of . any person,' any income falling wi.thin any of the following clauses shall not be included. . (29) In the . case of an authority constituted under any law for 'the time being i'n. force for the marketing of commodities, any income derived from the letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of com**modities."** As is appareni, the assessee.would be entitled to exemption if (i) it.is an a~thoriiy constituted under any law # c ## •. ii) it is an authority constituted for marketing of,; - - - - •• - - - -· com.modi c. - ties. (iii).· the e~6m'ptable 'incqme is in respect of letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing ofCommodities. · . - The High Court had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the assessee had been established under law i.e. the Ware Hous- F ing Corporation Act, 1962. The question whether the assessee was an "authority" within the meaning of Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 led to a long discussion, as is plain from the judgment. The High Court agreed with the assessee that it was such an authority. Keeping apart, the reasoning given by the High Court, plain reading of ### Section 29 of Section 10 makes it evident that the authority must be o constituted under any law for the time being in force, which in oth~r - words means that it should be a creature of law. As an artificial person, it should be clothed with a personality ordained by law. The power of the authority whether it is wide or narrow, as discussed by the High Court, with due respect, appears to us alien to the concept with which we are concerned in sub-section 29 of Section 10. So the ancil- H _A_ B #### c D E 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. lary test, we say so unhesitatingly, was also satisfied that the assessee was an authority constituted under the law. The second test requiring the authority to be constituted for marketing of commodities is also fully satisfied by Section 24( d) of the Ware Housing Corporations Act, 1962 which enjoins upon a State Ware Housing Corporation to act as agent of the Central Ware Housing Corporation on the Government for the purpose of purchase, sale, storage and distribution of agricultural produce, seeds, manures, fertilisers, agricultural implements and individual commodities. These activities of the State Ware Housing Corporation as an·agent, undoubtedly, would be activities facilitating the marekting of commodities. This reasoning of ours is an addition to·the reasoning assigned by the High Court in coming to the conclusion that .the activities of the assessee have a business element. We agree with the High Court on that score also. The third test with regard to the exemptable income being in respect of letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities presents no difficulty because it stands undisputed that the income derived by the assessee was from letting of godowns or warehouses. The assessee having fulfilled all the tests was rightly entitled to the exemption as claimed. We are fully jn agreement with the High Court that the assessee was entitled to relief on these premises. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. We should have awarded costs also but since there is no opposition, there shall be no order as to costs. V.P.R. Appeal dismissed. _, ## ...