Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Article 276(2) of the Constitution limits the aggregate profession tax recoverable from one person by the State and local authorities taken together to Rs. 250 per annum, and whether the additional profession tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was invalid.
Analysis: Article 276(2) was construed as permitting each of the specified authorities to levy profession tax up to the constitutional ceiling of Rs. 250 per annum. The words used in the provision were read disjunctively, not conjunctively, and the proviso was treated as preserving existing taxes that exceeded the limit. The levy by the Panchayat Samiti was held not to amount to impermissible double taxation, because a tax on profession is distinct from a tax on income and may be levied independently by different competent authorities.
Conclusion: The additional profession tax imposed by the Panchayat Samiti was valid, and the constitutional challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The constitutional ceiling under Article 276(2) applies separately to each authorised taxing body, so the impugned levy stood upheld and the challenge was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 276(2) permits each authorised authority to impose profession tax up to the prescribed maximum separately, and the aggregate of taxes imposed by different authorities is not confined to a single combined ceiling.