SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(SC) 10

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, A.N. GROVER AND A.N. RAY, JJ.
The Twyford Tea Co. Ltd., and another, Petitioners
Versus
The State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
Writ Petn. Nos. 135-137 of 1969, D/- 15-1-1970.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Mr. Sajad Mir, Dy. Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. Syed Manzoor, Advocate.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 32 - Kerala Plantation (Additional Tax) Act, 1960 - Kerala Plantation (Additional Tax) Amendment Act, 1967 - Land Tax Act, 1955 - Comspany - Notices - Demanding payment of tax - Petitioner company is incorporated in India and majority of its shareholders are Indians - It owns a tea estate in Kuttikanam area in Peermade hills in Kerala State - Estate consists of 1006 hectares equal to 2486 acres of which 491 hectares equal to 1214 acres are tea plantations - According to petitioners Peermade hills are in Western Ghats and are divided into two main parts - Kuttikanam area roughly 35 sq. miles is situated at an altitude of 3400 to 3700 ft. and receives 150 to 200 inches of rainfall annually - According to Petitioners statements M/s. Parkins Private Ltd., are Managing Agents of Twyford Tea Company and also Haileyburia Tea Estate - Former is in Kuttikanam and latter is Periyar area - Held, in Court view, apposite so far as impugned tax is concerned, for, tax is uniformly levied merely on footing of land being used for growing tea, without any regard to its potentiality, situation, kind of tea which can suitably be grown at a particular place, its geographical and other features etc - No doubt, State in exercise of taxing power can select persons and objects for taxation but if it is found that within range of that selection law operates unequally by reason either of classification or its absence, such a provision would be hit by equality clause of Article 14 - In Court view, has happened in so far as tax on tea plantations, with which only are concerned in these petitions is concerned and to extent that Act XVII of 1960, as amended by Act XIX of 1967, imposes tax on holders of tea plantations, it is violative of Article 14 and i void - Petitions dismissed.

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. :- These are three petitions by Twyford Tea Company and one of its directors under Art. 32 of the Constitution seeking appropriate writ, order or direction to declare the Kerala Plantation (Additional Tax) Act, 1960 (Act XVII of 1960) and the Kerala Plantation (Additional Tax) Amendment Act, 1967 (Act XIX of 1967) unconstitutional and void. In addition the petitioners ask that the notices annexures B. C and D demanding payment of the tax be also quashed and a sum of Rs. 1,02,106.02 already paid as tax to the Kerala Government be ordered to be refunded. They further seek a mandamus restraining the State of Kerala and Tehsildar Peermade from using the two Acts against the petitioners.

2. The petitioner company is incorporated in India and the majority of its shareholders are Indians. It owns a tea estate in Kuttikanam area in the Peermade hills in Kerala State. The estate consists of 1006 hectares equal to 2486 acres of which 491 hectares equal to 1214 acres are tea plantations. According to the petitioners Peermade hills are in the Western Ghats and are divided into two main parts. Kuttikanam area roughly 35 sq. miles is situated at an altitude of 3400 to 3700 ft. and receives 150 to 200 inches of rainfall annually. The Periyar valley area roughly 60 sq. miles is situated at an altitude of 2800 to 3200 ft. and receives 100 to 150 inches rainfall annually. The Periyar valley area is more fertile than the Kuttikanam area. According to the Petitioners statements M/s. Parkins Private Ltd., are the Managing Agents of Twyford Tea Company and also the Haileyburia Tea Estate. The former is in Kuttikanam and the latter is Periyar area. The extent of produce from these two areas is very different. Between the years 1963 to 1967 Twyford Tea Company produced 959 to 1211 kgs. per hectare while Haileyburia produced 1461 to 1845 kgs. per hectare. The other tea estates disclosed the same differences in production. Examples are given of Penshurst, Karimtharuvi estates under the same management and of Stagbrook and Cheenthalaar and other estates. The Twyford Tea Company s net profits have declined from Rs. 2,28,222 (1963) to Rs. 59,938 (1967). The net profits of Twyford Tea Company after taxation per hectare ranged from Rs. 122.00 (1967) to Rs. 465.00 (1963) with loss in 1966, while the profits of Heileyburia ranged from Rs. 909.00 (1963) to Rs. 770.00 (1967) with Rs. 245.00 in 1966. This difference is attributed to the differences in fertility between the Kuttikanam and Periyar areas. The petitioners state that similar differences exist in the Vandiperiyar and Nelliampathy areas. The petitioners point out that for purposes of excise duty these areas have been formed into different zones and different rates of excise duty are leviable in these zones.

3. The two statutes which are impugned here imposed a tax on plantations. In the Act XVII of 1960 there is a levy of "additional tax" on plantations. The Act came into force on 1-4-1960. "Plantations" mean land used for growing seven kinds of crops. They are (1) Cocoanut, (2) Arecanut, (3) Rubber, (4) Coffee, (5) Tea, (6) Cardamom and (7) Pepper. Section 3 of Act XVII of 1960 is the charging section. Under that section for each financial year a plantation tax additional to the basic tax charged as land tax under the Land Tax Act, 1955 is payable at the rate mentioned in Schedule I of the Act. This Schedule states that no tax is payable if the aggregate extent of plantations held by a person is below five acres. But if the plantations held by a person is 5 acres or more, a tax of Rs. 8/- per acre is payable with exemption for the first two acres. For purposes of finding out the extent of the plantations in acres held by a person a method of calculation is added in Schedule II. It is not necessary to quote this schedule because it has been amended by Act XIX of 1967 and that Schedule will be quoted presently. By the Amended Act the name of the tax is changed. The word "addi














































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top