https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168530 The Court upheld a plantation tax, holding that the State Legislature had competence to impose the levy even without a specific entry expressly mirroring the general land tax. On equality, the majority ruled that taxation allows wide legislative discretion in selecting and classifying subjects, and that a uniform tax on a defined class is valid unless it creates hostile or irrational discrimination; the challenge failed because the levy classified plantations by user and applied an equalising formula. Shelat J. dissented, finding that a uniform ad hoc levy on tea plantations ignored productivity and related factors and therefore violated Article 14. en-us Thu, 15 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:59:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168530 The Court upheld a plantation tax, holding that the State Legislature had competence to impose the levy even without a specific entry expressly mirroring the general land tax. On equality, the majority ruled that taxation allows wide legislative discretion in selecting and classifying subjects, and that a uniform tax on a defined class is valid unless it creates hostile or irrational discrimination; the challenge failed because the levy classified plantations by user and applied an equalising formula. Shelat J. dissented, finding that a uniform ad hoc levy on tea plantations ignored productivity and related factors and therefore violated Article 14. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168530