Stamp duty on advocate enrolment upheld as a valid tax; no infringement of the right to practise a profession.

The Madras HC held that stamp duty on enrolment as an advocate is a valid fiscal levy and does not infringe the right to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g). The Court reasoned that the constitutional protection of professional freedom does not exempt it from taxation, and that Article 19 and Article 13 do not bar taxes affecting protected rights. The levy was neither discriminatory nor a prohibitive licence tax, and it was not shown to be so excessive or oppressive as to destroy the right to practise law. The challenge was rejected and the application dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the stamp duty payable on enrolment as an advocate under the stamp law was unconstitutional as infringing the right to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The right to practise law was held not to be free from all fiscal burdens. The Constitution recognises the State's power to levy taxes, including taxes affecting rights protected in Part III, and nothing in Article 19 or Article 13 exempts such rights from taxation. The duty on enrolment was not treated as a discriminatory or prohibitive levy, nor as a licence tax imposed to suppress the exercise of a constitutional freedom. The Court distinguished the American decisions relied on, holding that the doctrine of previous restraint applied to speech, press, and religion in that jurisprudence, but could not be extended as an absolute rule to taxation of professional enrolment. The levy was also not shown to be so excessive or oppressive as to destroy the right to practise the profession.

Conclusion: The stamp duty on enrolment as an advocate was constitutionally valid and did not infringe Article 19(1)(g). The application was dismissed.

---