1963 (7) TMI 105 - HC - Wealth-tax

State Legislature Competency Confirmed in Tax Act Challenge

Thuttampara Planting Co. Versus Tahsildar, Chittur and Ors.

The court upheld the legislative competency of the State Legislature to pass the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960, ruling that the tax ... - Issues Involved:1. Legislative Competency2. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14 of the ConstitutionIssue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legislative Competency:The primary contention was whether the State Legislature had the legislative competency to pass the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960. The petitioners argued that the Act did not fall under Item 46 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, as it was not a tax on agricultural income. They further contended that it could not fall under Item 45 either, as the tax imposed was not on land but on trees. The court referred to the preamble and specific provisions of the statute, particularly the definition of 'plantation' in Section 2(6) and the charging Section 3, which outlined the tax on plantations based on the number of bearing trees and the extent of land.The court concluded that the tax levied was indeed on land and not on income. It emphasized that the tax was related to the potential productivity of the land, with the number of trees serving as a just method to determine the potential yield of the land. The court noted, 'The fixation of the extent with reference to the number of trees, it appears to me, is a just method. And the impost has thus been related to the potentiality of the land.' Consequently, the court held that the Act fell fairly under Item 45 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, and thus, the State Legislature had the legislative competency to enact the statute.2. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:The second major contention was that the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960, was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that the Act imposed a heavy and recurring tax on owners of certain types of plantations while excluding others, such as cashew, lemon grass, and tapioca cultivation, which they claimed were similar to the included plantations.The court addressed this argument by stating that no such averment had been made in the affidavit, and thus, the State had no opportunity to counter it. Moreover, the court found that there was a rational basis for the classification made in the Act. The plantations mentioned in the Act were well-known and represented the main activity of the people in the State. The court referred to precedents, including Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1563) and East India Tobacco Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1733), which upheld the wide discretion of the State in selecting objects for taxation.The court cited passages from these cases to emphasize that a taxing statute could only be challenged under Article 14 if it imposed unequal taxation within the same class of property or persons without a valid classification. The court noted, 'It is only when within the range of its selection, the law operates unequally, and that cannot be justified on the basis of any valid classification, that it would be violative of Article 14.'The court also referred to the principle summarized in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Sri Justice S. R. Tendolkar (1959 SCR 279), which stated that a classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia with a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. The court found that the classification in the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960, met these criteria and did not violate Article 14.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ application, upholding the legislative competency of the State Legislature to enact the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960, and finding no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court awarded costs of Rs. 200/- to the respondents.