Penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax: provision found confiscatory and invalid under freedom to practise, competence upheld

Constitutionality of a statutory penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax was examined: the provision was found confiscatory because it deprives the owner of retained income, lacks relation to delay duration or wilfulness, and attracts liability automatically after thirty days, and consequently it was invalidated under the freedom to practise or carry on business guarantee. The provision was held not to violate equal protection principles because it serves as a deterrent, provides notice, opportunities for mitigation, and appellate remedies, and thus was within Parliament's legislative competence being supported by the residual entry read with the power to legislate on taxation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, authorising levy of penalty up to 50% for non-payment of self-assessed tax within 30 days is confiscatory and violative of Article 19(1)(f); (ii) Whether section 140A(3) offends Article 14 as discriminatory or by conferring arbitrary unguided power; (iii) Whether section 140A(3) is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament.

Issue (i): Whether section 140A(3) is confiscatory and violates Article 19(1)(f).

Analysis: The Court examined the substance of section 140A(3) and compared it with recognised modes of enforcing recovery of Government dues, including compensatory interest provisions in other tax regimes and various recovery mechanisms. It considered that tax under section 140A(1) is a present civil debt and that recoveries normally permit compensatory interest or coercive recovery of the debt but do not impose additional punitive burdens unrelated to delay or culpability. The provision allows penalty without relation to duration of delay, wilfulness, or ability to pay and lacks a compensatory nexus to the debt; it therefore authorises taking retained income rather than merely enforcing payment of the debt.

Conclusion: Section 140A(3) is confiscatory in substance and violates Article 19(1)(f); it is not saved by Article 19(5).

Issue (ii): Whether section 140A(3) infringes Article 14 by creating an arbitrary power or invidious discrimination.

Analysis: The Court considered whether the provision vests unguided discretion in the Income-tax Officer and whether the classification effected is arbitrary or discriminatorily hostile. It noted procedural safeguards in the statute (notice, hearing and appeal remedies) and that Parliament may legitimately treat the Government and its refund obligations as a separate class. The Court applied precedent on guidance for administrative discretion and on reasonable classification.

Conclusion: Section 140A(3) does not infringe Article 14; it does not constitute arbitrary unguided power nor an invidious discrimination against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether section 140A(3) is beyond legislative competence of Parliament.

Analysis: The Court analysed entries in the Seventh Schedule and precedents addressing the scope of parliamentary powers, concluding that the impugned provision falls within Parliament's legislative competence under entry 97 of List I and article 248 when read with the income-tax entries.

Conclusion: Section 140A(3) is within the legislative competence of Parliament.

Final Conclusion: The Court allowed the writ petitions on the ground that section 140A(3) is confiscatory and unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(f), while holding it neither violative of Article 14 nor beyond Parliament's competence; orders imposing penalty under section 140A(3) were quashed and the writs were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision that levies a non-compensatory penalty for non-payment of a tax already constituted as a civil debt and that bears no relation to delay, culpability or the debt itself is confiscatory and unreasonable under Article 19(1)(f); such a penalty cannot be sustained as incidental to enforcement of tax recovery.

---