There was a termination of the appellant’$ service when the order of dismissal was I ‘made on 237 December 17, 1951. Desai has drawn attention to the provisions of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 (Act XXVI of 1925), and especially to the definition of the expression ‘carriage of goods’ in Article I of the Schedule to that Act. (e) of this Article, covers the period from the time when the goods are loaded on to the time when they are discharged from the ship. The contention that the impugned Rule contravenes Arts.
957 (ii) If so, is it liable to be not included in the total income of the recipient by reason of Section 4 (3) (vii) ? We are in the view we have taken not called upon to consider whether even if the receipt of Rs. 142 or 144 is therefore untenable. ‘Carriage of goods’ according to cl. One of the modifications relates to State-owned and State-operated enterprises which are to be exempt from income-tax etc. ” In view of the answer the High Court observed as follows :- “As we have already held that the amount is taxable receipt, being receipt arising from business, Section 4 (3) (vii) does not exempt it from liability to tax.
In our opinion there is no substance in any one of these contentions. “The recommendations of the Indian States Finance Enquiry Committee, 1948-49 (hereafter referred ‘to as the Committee) contained in Part I of its Report read with Chapters I, II and III of Part II of its Report in so far as they apply to the State of Rajasthan (hereafter referred to as the State) together with the recommendations contained in Chapter VIII of Part II of the report, are accepted by the parties hereto, subject to the following modifications.
It’ cannot be asserted that the powers entrusted to the Central Government to bring within the purview of the Act such establishments or class of establishments as the Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify is uncontrolled and uncanalised. ” The reference was heard by the High Court and the learned judges answered the -first question as follows :- “The receipt of Rs. Of course, once the goods are landed, they are no more “carried’ by the ship and the expression “carriage of goods’, could only cover the period up to the discharge of the goods from the ship.
But that does not in any way affect the consideration of the questions before us. ” It is not necessary for our purpose to set out the modifications in detail. He continues to be a member of the service inspite of the order of NRI Legal Services LexLords suspension. The provision in the rule that the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal does not seek to affect the position that the order of dismissal previously passed was inoperative and that the appellant was a member of the service on May 25, NRI Legal Services by LexLords 1953, when the first, suit was instituted by the appellant.
(iii) Does the said receipt fall within the mischief of Section 10 (5A) (d) and as such liable to tax accordingly ? There is no doubt that the order of suspension affects a government servant injuriously. ” The Tribunal did not accept these contentions but at the request of the firm referred three questions for the decision of the High Court. 20,000/- is a taxable receipt for the purpose of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? Those questions were as follows :- whether the receipt of Rs.
12(4) that in certain circumstances the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders, does not in any way go against the declaration made by this Court. We answer the second question as follows : 20,000/- is a capital receipt, by operation of Section 10 (5A) (d) the amount can be regarded as a revenue receipt. Does the impugned rule go against this declaration?
An order of suspension of a government servant does not put an end to his service under the Government. The real effect of the order of suspension is that though he continued to be a member of the Government service he was not permitted to work, and further, during the period of his suspension he was paid only some allowance generally called, “”subsistence allowance”-which is normally less than his salary-instead of the pay and allowances he would have been entitled to if he had NRI not been suspended.
It is enough to say that there is nothing in the modifications which in any way benefits the appellant. (iv) alternatively, the said receipt was not liable to be included in the total income of the recipient by reasons of Section 4 (3) (vii). 20,000/- is a taxable receipt for the purpose of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. There is no basis for thinking however that because of the order of suspension he ceases to be a member of the service. When that order of dismissal was act aside: the appellant’s service revived; and so long as another order of dismissal NRI is not made or the service of the appellant is not NRI Legal Services by LexLords terminated by some other means, the appellant continues to be a member of the service and the LexLords NRI Legal Services order of suspension in no way affects this position.
The answer, in our opinion, must be in the negative.