Article 14 and tax classification upheld where Hindu undivided families and Mappilla tarwads were held materially different.

A taxing statute is not unconstitutional under article 14 if it rests on a rational, intelligible classification with a fair relation to the object of the law. The High Court held that a Hindu undivided family and a Mappilla Marumakkathayam tarwad were materially different legal and social units in descent, ownership, partition, management and succession, so their separate treatment did not amount to hostile discrimination. It further held that a tarwad karnavan, as an individual holding property in a representative capacity, could still fall within the term "individual" in the charging provisions. The challenge failed and the charging sections were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and section 3 of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957 were unconstitutional as violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that Hindu undivided families were singled out for tax treatment while Mappilla Marumakkathayam tarwads were not similarly taxed.

Analysis: The charging provisions were tested against the equality clause on the settled principle that a taxing statute is valid if it adopts a rational and intelligible classification having a fair relation to the object of the law. The Court held that a Hindu undivided family and a Mappilla Marumakkathayam tarwad were not similar legal or social units for the purpose of taxation. A tarwad, especially after the Mappilla Marumakkathayam Act, 1939, differed materially from a Hindu joint family in descent, incidents of ownership, partition rights, management, and succession. On that basis, the omission of tarwads from the express charging category did not amount to hostile discrimination. The Court further held that the karnavan of a tarwad, being an individual holding the property in a representative capacity, could still fall within the expression "individual" in the charging provisions.

Conclusion: The challenge under article 14 failed. The charging sections were held to be valid, and the levy under both Acts was upheld.

---