Tax classification for nursing homes upheld where harmonious construction and no hostile discrimination are shown.

Entry 20C(a) of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act is explained as a levy on the person carrying on the taxed activity, and the wording referring to nursing homes is treated as workable on harmonious construction with section 3(2). The text says the provision is not ultra vires merely because it is inartfully drafted, since the legislative intent to tax persons running nursing homes and hospitals remains clear. It also states that the classification between nursing homes and individual medical practitioners is not shown to be arbitrary under article 14, because nursing homes have distinct organisational and capital features and taxation allows broad legislative classification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether entry 20C(a) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 was ultra vires section 3(2) because it referred to a nursing home rather than a person liable to pay tax. (ii) Whether entry 20C(a) offended article 14 of the Constitution of India by creating an arbitrary and irrational classification and by imposing a higher tax on nursing homes than on medical practitioners.

Issue (i): Whether entry 20C(a) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 was ultra vires section 3(2) because it referred to a nursing home rather than a person liable to pay tax.

Analysis: Section 3(1) levies tax on professions, trades, callings and employments, and section 3(2) fastens liability on the person engaged in the activity specified in the Schedule. Reading the Act as a whole, the subject of taxation is the profession or calling, but the liability is on the person who carries it on. Entry 20C(a), though inartfully worded, clearly refers to the person who runs nursing homes and hospitals, except those run by the State or Central Government. The apparent defect in expression did not make the provision unworkable, and any ambiguity could be resolved by harmonious construction of the charging provision and the Schedule.

Conclusion: Entry 20C(a) was held to be valid and not ultra vires section 3(2); the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether entry 20C(a) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 offended article 14 of the Constitution of India by creating an arbitrary and irrational classification and by imposing a higher tax on nursing homes than on medical practitioners.

Analysis: A nursing home is an organised establishment distinct from an individual medical practitioner's clinic. It ordinarily involves greater capital investment, staff, beds, nursing care and wider facilities, and may even be run as a business by persons who are not themselves medical practitioners. The Legislature has wide latitude in taxation, and exact or microscopic classification is not required. The challengers failed to show that the levy was patently arbitrary, hostile, or so excessive as to be discriminatory. No de facto discrimination or unconstitutional inequality was established.

Conclusion: Entry 20C(a) was held not to violate article 14; the constitutional challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned tax entry was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In taxation matters, a provision will not be struck down for imperfect drafting or broad classification if, on harmonious construction of the statute as a whole, the legislative intent is clear and no hostile discrimination is shown.

---