https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19798 The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the maintainability of writ petitions by associations and the Bar Council, recognising that representative bodies may sue for affected members and rejecting the preliminary objection. It upheld the State's competence to levy profession tax under Entry 60 of List II and Article 276, and found no violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) on that basis. The classification of advocates by standing at the Bar and area of practice was sustained as a fiscal classification with rational nexus. However, Explanation No. 1 to the First Schedule was struck down as arbitrary because it linked profession-tax liability to income-tax liability from unrelated sources. High Court employees were held within the Act's coverage and liable to pay the tax. en-us Fri, 17 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:34:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19798 The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the maintainability of writ petitions by associations and the Bar Council, recognising that representative bodies may sue for affected members and rejecting the preliminary objection. It upheld the State's competence to levy profession tax under Entry 60 of List II and Article 276, and found no violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) on that basis. The classification of advocates by standing at the Bar and area of practice was sustained as a fiscal classification with rational nexus. However, Explanation No. 1 to the First Schedule was struck down as arbitrary because it linked profession-tax liability to income-tax liability from unrelated sources. High Court employees were held within the Act's coverage and liable to pay the tax. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19798