https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49427 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. en-us Wed, 04 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49427 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49427