Just a moment...
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 entry 19 of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976, which levied a flat annual tax on companies, was unconstitutional as discriminatory and violative of equality.
Analysis: The charging provision taxed professions, trades, callings and employments, and the Schedule adopted a broad classification based on the person liable to tax. Companies formed a distinct class because of their legal character, privileges, responsibilities and greater capacity to pay. In taxation matters, the Legislature is allowed wide latitude, and equality does not require minute or scientific classification in every case. A flat rate levy is not invalid merely because further differentiation may have been possible, so long as the classification adopted is rational and has a nexus with the object of the enactment.
Conclusion: The challenge to entry 19 failed. The flat-rate tax on companies was held to be a valid classification and not discriminatory.
Final Conclusion: The petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the impugned levy were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: In taxing statutes, a broad and rational classification is sufficient, and a flat-rate levy is not unconstitutional merely because the Legislature did not make further micro-classifications.