Broad power to tax land-holdings upheld: guided valuation, rational classification, and no confiscatory or constitutional violation found.

Entry 49 of List II was construed broadly to include agricultural lands, so a State tax on land-holdings remained within legislative competence. Section 5(1) and the Schedule were upheld because the Government's discretion to prescribe valuation multiples was guided by land class, district and local conditions, and the graded rates formed a rational taxation scheme, with no arbitrary classification or unreasonable restriction under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f). The challenge under Article 31 failed because taxing laws do not involve acquisition or requisition of property. The plea that the levy was confiscatory or a colourable exercise of power was rejected for lack of supporting material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Legislature had legislative competence under Entry 49 of List II to impose the impugned tax on land-holdings including agricultural lands; (ii) whether section 5(1) of the Act and the rates prescribed under the Schedule violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution; (iii) whether the Act offended Article 31 of the Constitution; and (iv) whether the Act was confiscatory or a colourable exercise of legislative power.

Issue (i): Whether the State Legislature had legislative competence under Entry 49 of List II to impose the impugned tax on land-holdings including agricultural lands.

Analysis: Entry 49 of List II authorises taxes on lands and buildings and must receive a liberal construction. The expression "lands" is wide enough to include agricultural lands as well as non-agricultural lands. The Act, in substance, imposed a tax on land-holdings, with annual value only providing the measure of the levy. A tax on land-holding within the meaning of the entry remained within the State's competence notwithstanding that agricultural lands were included in its operation.

Conclusion: The challenge to legislative competence failed; the Act was within the competence of the State Legislature.

Issue (ii): Whether section 5(1) of the Act and the rates prescribed under the Schedule violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

Analysis: Section 5(1) fixed only the maximum multiple for determining annual value and left the State Government discretion to prescribe appropriate multiples having regard to districts, classes of land, and local conditions. That discretion was not unfettered or uncanalised, and the notification issued under the provision showed classification and variation in multiples according to land categories and regions. The graded rates in the Schedule were based on annual value and formed part of a rational scheme of taxation. A taxing measure can be attacked under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f), but the impugned provisions did not disclose arbitrary classification or unreasonable restriction.

Conclusion: Section 5(1) and the Schedule were upheld as not infringing Articles 14 or 19(1)(f).

Issue (iii): Whether the Act offended Article 31 of the Constitution.

Analysis: Article 31(2) did not apply to a taxing statute, since such a law does not acquire or requisition property. The relevant inquiry under Article 31(1) was whether the levy was supported by a valid law. As the Act was held valid and not violative of Part III, the levy could not be struck down on the basis of Article 31.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Article 31 failed.

Issue (iv): Whether the Act was confiscatory or a colourable exercise of legislative power.

Analysis: A taxing statute is not invalid merely because the burden is heavy or even excessive. It may be struck down as colourable only if the surrounding circumstances show that the law is really a device to confiscate property. On the material placed, the petitioner failed to establish confiscatory effect or fraudulent use of legislative power. The scheme of the Act, the method of valuation, and the figures in the counter-affidavit did not support the plea that the levy was confiscatory.

Conclusion: The plea of colourable legislation and confiscation was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned tax law was upheld in all material respects and the petitioner's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing statute may be challenged under Part III, but it will be upheld where the legislative competence exists, the classification and delegated discretion are rational and guided, Article 31(2) is inapplicable to tax laws, and confiscation cannot be inferred merely from a heavy tax burden without proof of colourable exercise of power.

---