Tax on land used as a market upheld; Article 14 challenge failed absent proof of discriminatory fixation.

A levy imposed on land used as a market, where the charge falls on the land and not on market transactions, is a tax on land within Entry 49 of List II and within State legislative competence. The annual impost under Section 62 of the Assam Local Self-Government Act was therefore treated as a valid land tax, with its amount linked to the area and importance of the market. A constitutional challenge under Article 14 also failed because no material was produced to show arbitrary or discriminatory fixation by comparison with other markets; discrimination could not be inferred from different tax amounts alone.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the annual impost levied under Section 62 of the Assam Local Self-Government Act, No. XXV of 1953 was a tax on land within Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and within the legislative competence of the State; (ii) Whether the fixation of tax on the appellant's market offended Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground of discrimination.

Issue (i): Whether the annual impost levied under Section 62 of the Assam Local Self-Government Act, No. XXV of 1953 was a tax on land within Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and within the legislative competence of the State.

Analysis: The charging provision authorised a licence and an annual tax on land used as a market. The scheme of the section showed that the liability arose because land was used as a market, while the tax itself was levied on the land and payable by the owner or occupier. The amount depended on the area and importance of the market, but no tax was imposed on transactions in the market. On that construction, the impost was treated as a tax on land and not as a tax on markets as such.

Conclusion: The impost was within the competence of the State Legislature and was valid as a tax on land.

Issue (ii): Whether the fixation of tax on the appellant's market offended Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground of discrimination.

Analysis: A challenge under Article 14 required material showing that the tax had been fixed arbitrarily or without regard to the size and importance of the markets. The record contained no facts or figures comparing the relevant markets by size or importance. In the absence of such material, discrimination could not be inferred merely from the difference in the amounts fixed.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 14 failed and the fixation of tax was not shown to be discriminatory.

Final Conclusion: The impugned levy was upheld as a permissible tax on land, and the constitutional challenge based on discrimination was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A levy imposed on land used as a market, where the charge is on the land and not on market transactions, is a tax on land within Entry 49 of List II; a challenge under Article 14 fails unless the claimant proves discriminatory fixation with supporting material.

---