TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds writ petitions by associations, deems State Legislature competent to enact tax law, declares part invalid.</h1> The court upheld the maintainability of writ petitions by associations, affirmed the competence of the State Legislature to enact the Andhra Pradesh Tax ... Co-operative Society, Gifts To Members By Co-operative Society Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of writ petitions by associations.2. Competence of the State Legislature to enact the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987.3. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.4. Classification of advocates and the imposition of profession tax.5. Validity of Explanation No. 1 to the First Schedule of the Act.6. Applicability of the Act to High Court employees.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Writ Petitions by Associations:The Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing that no aggrieved person directly filed the petitions. The court held that the concept of locus standi has evolved, and associations are competent to file writ petitions. The court referenced Section 6(1)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which empowers Bar Councils to safeguard the rights, privileges, and interests of advocates. The preliminary objection was rejected, affirming the maintainability of the writ petitions.2. Competence of the State Legislature:The petitioners argued that the State Legislature lacked the competence to enact the Act. The court referred to Entry 60 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and Article 276, which authorize the State Legislature to impose taxes on professions, trades, callings, and employments. The court concluded that the State Legislature was competent to enact the statute, as affirmed in previous Division Bench decisions.3. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g):The petitioners contended that the Act violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) due to arbitrary classification. The court examined the First Schedule of the Act and concluded that the classification of advocates based on their standing and the area of practice was not arbitrary. The court emphasized that the Legislature has wide latitude in classifying subjects of taxation and fixing rates of tax, and such classification was based on intelligible differentia.4. Classification of Advocates and Imposition of Profession Tax:The petitioners argued that the classification of advocates into different categories for tax purposes was arbitrary. The court held that the classification based on standing at the Bar and the area of practice was rational and reasonable. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Shivananjundappa v. State of Karnataka, which upheld similar classifications. The court concluded that the classification in the Act was not arbitrary or unreasonable.5. Validity of Explanation No. 1 to the First Schedule:The petitioners challenged Explanation No. 1, which mandated the maximum profession tax for assessees liable to pay income tax. The court found this explanation arbitrary and unreasonable, as it lacked a rational nexus between the income from other sources and the profession tax. The court declared Explanation No. 1 to the First Schedule as invalid.6. Applicability of the Act to High Court Employees:The petitioners in W.P. No. 13382 of 1987 contended that High Court employees were not covered by the Act. The court examined the definitions of 'employee' and 'person' in Sections 2(e) and 2(j) of the Act, concluding that High Court employees were indeed covered. The court also referenced Article 229 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment and service conditions of High Court employees. The court held that High Court employees fall within the purview of the Act and are liable to pay the tax.Conclusion:The writ petitions were allowed only to the extent of declaring Explanation No. 1 to the First Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987, as invalid. All other contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners were rejected. The court affirmed the competence of the State Legislature, the rationality of the classification, and the applicability of the Act to High Court employees. No order as to costs was made, and the advocate's fee was set at Rs. 250 in each case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
