Back
1965 Supreme(Ker) 180
Judges : M.S.MENON,M.MADHAVAN NAIR
Essa Ismail Alias Babu - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : W. A. No. 57,60 of 1964 against O. P. No. 2379, 2378 of 1963
Decided On : 07/30/1965
Advocates Appeared :
V. K. K. Menon; C. S. Padmanabha Iyer; M. Ramachandran; C. J. Balakrishnan; For Appellant Advocate General; For Respondent
The Act was found not to violate Art.14 of the Constitution as it taxed land based on its user with a fair and equitable method of assessment.
Headnote:
Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act - Ultra Vires of Art.14 - 1964 KLT. 47, 1961 KLT. (S.C.) 11, Art.14, Art.31B, S.2(6), S.3(4), Schedule II - The court discussed the validity of the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960, in light of Art.14 of the Constitution and referenced previous decisions and constitutional provisions. The Act was found not to violate Art.14 as it taxed land based on its user, with a fair and equitable method of assessment.
Fact of the Case:
The writ appeals were filed against the dismissal of O.P. Nos. 2378 and 2379 of 1963, which were related to the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the Act was not violative of Art.14 of the Constitution and upheld the decision in the original petitions, dismissing the writ appeals.
Issues: The sole issue was whether the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960, was ultra vires of Art.14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from previous decisions, including 1964 KLT. 47 and 1961 KLT. (S.C.) 11, to determine that the Act did not violate Art.14 as it taxed land based on its user with a fair and equitable method of assessment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeals, holding that the Act was not violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.
1. These writ appeals are directed against the dismissal of O.P. Nos. 2378 and 2379 of 1963. Writ Appeal No. 57 is from the decision in O.P. No. 2379 of 1963 & Writ Appeal No. 60 is from the decision in O.P. No. 2378 of 1963. The common judgment for both the petitions reads as follows:
"In view of the decision reported in 1964 KLT. 47, I dismiss the above petitions."
2. The sole question for determination is whether the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960, is ultra vires of Art.14 of the Constitution which provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Thuttampara Planting Co. v. Tahsildar, Chittur, 1954 KLT. 47 is to the effect that the statute does not violate Art.14 of the Constitution.
3. Every difference in treatment is not an act of discrimination. It is not the lack of uniformity but the absence of an intelligible differentia that offends the article and abrogates the statute.
4. The taxation provided by the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960, was additional to the taxation provided by the Land Tax Act, 1955. That Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala, (1961 KLT. (S.C.) 11 as violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.
Subsequently the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, was passed and inserted in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act. 1964.
5. The insertion of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, in the Ninth Schedule placed it beyond the pale of the fundamental rights embodied in Part-Ill of the Constitution. This is evident from Art.31B which occurs in that part of the Constitution:
"Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Art.31A, none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become void, on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of this Part, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary, each of the said Acts and Regulations shall, subject to the power of any competent Legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force."
6. The decision in Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala 1961 KLT. (SC.) 11 embodies the principles by which the validity of an Act like the one before us should be tested; and it is unnecessary to go beyond that decision for the determination of the cases before us. In that case the Supreme Court said:
"The guarantee of equal protection of the laws must extend even to taxing statutes. It does not mean that every person should be taxed equally. But it does mean that if property of the same character has to be taxed, the taxation must be by the same standard, so that the burden of taxation may fall equally on all persons holding that kind and extent of property. If the taxation, generally speaking, imposes a similar burden on every one with reference to that particular kind and extent of property, on the same basis of taxation the law shall not be open to attack on the ground of inequality, even though the result of the taxation may be that the total burden on different persons may be unequal. Hence, if the Legislature has classified persons or properties into different categories, which are subjected to different rates of taxation with reference to income or property such a classification would not be open to the attack of inequality on the ground that the total burden resulting from such a classification is unequal. Similarly, different kinds of property may be subjected to different rates of taxation, but so long as there is a rational basis for the classification, Art.14 will not be in the way of such a classification resulting in unequal burdens on different classes of properties. But if the same class of property similarly
