scellaneous Petition No 8678 of 1986
IN Writ Petition No 9 144 of 1983
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India G Vishwanath Iyer MKD Namboodry and section Balakrishnan for the Petitioners
RB Datar and VB Saharya for the Respondent
The following order of the Court was delivered O R D E R In this Writ Petition the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction quashing the order No TaxHQSpl
Cell83 1948 dated 4 8 1983 734 issued by the Deputy Assessor and Collector of the Assessment and Collection Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi fixing the rateable value of the property of the petitioners at Rs1210300 with effect from 96
1981 and the consequent bill 180II dated 4 8 1983 served on the petitioners making a demand of arrears of Rs 1407328 as a composite amount of property tax fire tax water tax scavenging tax and education tax and making any other order as the Court deems fit
The first petitioner is a shareholder and company secretary of the company Ms
Siddharth Inter Continental Hotels India Ltd and the second petitioner is Ms Siddharth Inter Continental Hotels India Ltd
On 26 10
1987 we passed an order adjourning the case to 211
1987 to hear the learned counsel for the parties on the question whether the above petition under Article 32 of the Constitution should be decided by this Court or whether we should direct the petitioners to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
Accordingly we have heard the learned counsel
We are of the view that this petition should be disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a petition if so advised before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
We accordingly dispose of this petition for the following reasons 1
The scope of the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is wider than the scope of the powers of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution 2
The relief prayed for in the petition is one which may be granted by the High Court and any of the parties who is dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court can approach this Court by way of an appeal
The fact that some case involving the very same point of law is pending in this Court is no ground to entertain a petition directly by passing the High Court
If the parties get relief at the High Court they need not come here and to that extent the burden on this Court is reduced
The hearing of the case at the level of the High Court is more convenient from several angles and will be cheaper to the parties
It saves lot of time too
It will be easier for the clients to give instructions to their lawyers
Our High Courts are High Courts
Each High Court has its 735 own high traditions
They have judges of eminence who have initiative necessary skills and enthusiasm
Their capacity should be harnessed to deal with every type of case arising from their respective areas which they are competent to dispose of
Every High Court Bar has also its high traditions
There are eminent lawyers practising in the High Courts with wide experience in handling different kinds of cases both original and appellate
They are fully aware of the history of every legislation in their States
Their services should be made available to the litigants in the respective States 7
This Court has no time today even to dispose of cases which have to be decided by it alone and by no other authority
Large number of cases are pending from 10 to 15 years
Even if no new case is filed in this Court hereafter with the present strength of Judges it may take more than 15 years to dispose of all the pending cases
If the cases which can be filed in the High Courts are filed in the High Court and not in this Court this Court s task of acting as original court which is a time consuming process can be avoided and this Court will also have the benefit of the decision of the High Court when it deals with an appeal filed against such decision
If cases which may be filed in the High Courts are filed in this Court it would affect the initiative of the High Courts
We should preserve the dignity majesty and efficiency of the High Courts
The taking over by this Court of the work which the High Courts can handle may undermine the capacity and efficiency of the High Courts and that should therefore he avoided
Lastly the time saved by this Court by not entertaining the cases which may be filed before the High Courts can be utilised to dispose of old matters in which parties are crying for relief
These are some of the reasons which have compelled us to pass this order


Summary:
 The appellants registered firms under the Income Tax Act 1961 filed delayed returns
The Income Tax officer assessed the appellants under section 1433 of the Act and determined the total incomes of the appellants and the amounts of the tax payable by them
The Income Tax officer also determined and added under sub section 4 of section 139 of the Act the amounts of interest on the amounts of tax payable by the appellants
The appellants challenged the charging of interest in the High Court by writ petitions
The High Court dismissed all but some writ petitions which were allowed in part to the extent that the Income tax officer was directed to take into account the advance tax paid by the assessees while calculating the interest
The appellants have filed Civil Appeals Nos
1032 1036 of 1973 1927 1933 of 1978 and 1288 and 1289 of 1980 against the decision of the High Court
Allowing Civil Appeal No 1035 of 1973 and dismissing all the other appeals the Court  HELD Sub section 4 of section 139 of the Income Tax Act is a substantive provision which does not provide for the making of an application to the Income Tax officer for extention of the date for furnishing return
The sub section provides that even though a person does not furnish the return within the time allowed under sub section 1 or 2 of section 139 yet he may furnish the same before the end of four assessment years concerned
The substantive provisions of subsections 1 and 2 specify the time within which the return has to be filed
The provisos to the sub sections confer power on the Income tax officer to extend the date for filing the return on an application
The expression time allowed in sub section 4 is not confined only to the extension of time granted by the Income tax officer but also to the time originally fixed for 690 filing the returns under sub section1 and 2
694G H695A D The Income Tax officer is entitled to charge interest in accordance with the provisions of clause iii of the proviso to sub section 1 of section 139 in a case where time has been extended by the Income Tax officer to file returns on application made by the assessee and the return is not filed within the time allowed and in a case where no such application has been made by the assessee and the return is filed beyond the time allowed but before the end of the four assessment years concerned
695D F Secondly as decided by this Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax   and Commissioner of Income Tax AP vs Chandra Sekhar   the interest is levied by way of compensation and not by way of penalty as contended by the appellants
696A The contention of the appellants that the provisions of Sub Section 4 of section 139 read with clause iii a of the proviso to Sub Section 1 of section 139 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because Sub Section 4 has placed the registered firms in a separate category inasmuch as they have to pay interest calculated on the amount of tax payable by them as unregistered firms and a registered firm is treated as an unregistered firm for purposes of qualification of interest is not comprehensible Section 139 4 read with clause iiia of the proviso to section 1391 as it stood prior to April 1 1971 has placed the registered firms and the unregistered firms on the same footing and is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is quite legal and valid
697H 698A D Where advance tax duly covers the entire amount of the tax assessed there is no question of charging a registered firm with interest if the return is filed beyond the time allowed regard being given to the fact that payment of interest is only compensatory in nature
As the entire amount of the tax is paid by way of advance tax the question of payment of any compensation does not arise and accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case in the CA No 1035 of 1973 the Income Tax of officer was not justifed in charging interest and the assessee in that case is entitled to refund of the amount paid by way of interest
699B C E Commissioner of Income Tax A 
P vs M Chandra Sekhar   Central Provinces Manganese ore Co Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax 1986 160 ITR 961 Jain Brothers 691 and others vs Union of India and others  M Nagappa vs Income Tax officer Central Circle I Bangalore  Mahendra Kumar Ishwarlal and Co v Union of India and  Chhotalal  Co vs Income Tax officer  Jiwanmal Hospital vs Income Tax officer  Hindustan Steel Forges vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Mohanlal Soni vs Union of India  referred to