Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY, U.C.BENERJEE
ECIL Officers Association - Appellant
Versus
Government of A.P - Respondent
Decided On : 04-28-98
A. P. Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employment Act,1987 - Section 4 and 24 - Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Section 17 - Customs Act - Section 25(2) - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14,226,276 - Challenge - Associations/unions of employees employed in Public Sector undertakings Banks Central Government Departments and in private Industries - Some of Associations represent employees of rank of officers in Public Sector undertakings - In some writ petitions businessmen or Associations representing businessmen Contractors and Transport Agents also figure as petitioners - They challenge constitutional validity of Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions Trades Callings and Employments Act, 1987 - Collection and recovery of profession tax at enhanced rates as per First Schedule to said Act as amended by Act 29 of 1996 with effect from is being questioned - Some of writ petitions were filed at point of time when Ordinance was in force - In a few writ petitions relevant amended entry in First Schedule prescribing rates of tax has been challenged as violative of constitutional provisions - Held, SECTION 2 (m) - "salary or wages" includes pay or wages deamess allowances and all other remunerations received by any assessee on regular basis whether payable in cash or kind and also includes perquisites and profits in lieu of salary and defined in Section 17 of Income-Tax Act, 1961 but docs not include bonus in any form and on any account or gratuity - Court take up for discussion specific plea of violation of Article 14 in light of contextual facts Court consider it appropriate to recapitulate well-settled principles bearing on doctrine of equality - Word discrimination in common acceptation means and implies differentiation in treatment among same class of persons - Constitutional safeguard as envisaged in terms of Article 14 offers a right to equal treatment in similar circumstances both in regard however to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed - Principle being that there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards subject-matter of State action their position is same hi other words State action must not be arbitrary and must be based on some valid principle which itself must not be irrational or discriminatory - Court do not see any merit in these writ petitions more so by reason of fact that there is no conferment of benefit to any section of employees, but liability to pay remains suspended during a particular period of time - Mere suspension or keeping in abeyance of enhancement of tax in regard to a particular section of employees Court view docs riot confer any right to invoke equality clause as provided in Article 14 of Constitution any event if that be termed to be an illegality question of taking advantage of such an illegality does not and cannot arise by reason of fact that Legislature is within its limits and rights to fix quantum subject to maximum as is prescribed - Fixation of does not in any way offend any of provisions of law and as such recovery from salaries of employees said amounof cannot be said to be unjustifiable and present writ petitions cannot be allowed by reason of conferment of a benefit of an abeyance-order in regard to a set of employees - This cannot be said to be discriminatory in nature in any sense of term and as such docs not come within purview of jurisdiction of Writ Court - Writ Petitions Dismissed
( 1 ) THE powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is of widest possible amplitude in the matter of grant of relief, but, that power is, however, limited by its very nature, since the Court desirous of protecting the citizens constitutional rights and for strengthening the socio-economic fabric, needs to move with a degree of judicial circumspection with certain self-imposed limitations and in accordance with known principles of law. The Court needs to balance the authority of the past with the urges of the future. The essential identity of the institution that it is a Court must remain preserved so that every action of the Court is informed by fundamental norms of law and by the principles embodied in the Constitution and other sources of law. Roscopound s doctrine of flexibility of the law Courts ought to be read in consonance with the above limitations and not d hors the same. The institutional remedy as the Constitution provides must be offered and not anything beyond the same. While it is true that the Court should not hesitate or falter to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226, in the event if it is exercised, it should take care to remain within the restraints of its jurisdiction.
( 2 ) HAVING dealt with the basic features of exercise of jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution and before turning our attention to the core point of discrimination raised in these writ petitions, let us now advert to the factual background giving rise to these writ petitions and the relevant provisions of the Act. The petitioners herein are Associations/unions of employees employed in Public Sector undertakings, Banks, Central Government Departments and in private Industries. Some of the Associations represent the employees of the rank of officers in Public Sector undertakings. In some writ petitions, businessmen or Associations representing the businessmen, Contractors and Transport Agents also figure as petitioners. They challenge the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987. The collection and recovery of profession tax at enhanced rates as per First Schedule to the said Act as amended by Act 29 of 1996 with effect from 1-8-1996 is being questioned. Some of the writ petitions were filed at the point of time when Ordinance No. 21 of 1996 (which was later replaced by Act 29 of 1996) was in force. In a few writ petitions, the relevant amended entry in the First Schedule prescribing the rates of tax has been challenged as violative of constitutional provisions.
( 3 ) A. P. Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employment Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was enacted in the year 1987. The maximum rate of profession tax then prescribed was Rs. 250. 00 per annum. This was in conformity with the ceiling prescribed by Article 276 of the Constitution. There was an unsuccessful challenge to the said Act by various sections of professionals and employees. However, the then existing Explanation No. 1 was struck down by this Court in W. P. Nos. 13066, 13382 and 14184 of 1987 dated 17-7-1992. But that is not relevant for the purpose of these writ petitions; hence we need not go into the details thereof.
( 4 ) IN tune with the 60th Constitutional Amendment made in the year 1988 raising the ceiling limit under Article 276 to Rs. 2,500. 00per annum, the State of A. P. amended the Act of 1987 by A. P. Act 29 of 1996. It was provided that the said amendment would come into force on and from 1-8-1996. The principal feature of this amendment is to substitute a new I-Schedule to the Act so as to raise the rates of profession tax upto the maximum level contemplated by Article 276 of the Constitution.
( 5 ) THE rates of tax prescribed in the relevant entries in the First Schedule are as follows:
( 6 ) EXPLANATION No. II lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in this schedule, whe
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
