The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960 imposed a tax on land, not income, and the classification of plantations for taxation was found to be rational and not violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.

1. "It is common ground that the tax assuming that the Act is really a taxing statute and not a confiscatory measure, as contended on behalf of the petitioners, has no reference to income, either actual or potential, from the property sought to be taxed. Hence, it may be rightly remarked that the Act obliges every person who holds land to pay the tax at the flat rate prescribed whether or not he makes any income out of the property, or whether or not the property is capable of yielding any income. The Act, in terms, claims to be 'a general revenue settlement of the State' (S.3). Ordinarily a tax on land or land revenue is assessed on the actual or the potential productivity of the land sought to be taxed. In other words, the tax has reference to the income actually made, or which could have been made with due diligence, and, therefore, if levied with due regard to the incidence of the taxation".

So said the Chief Justice of India in Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala (AIR. 1961 S.C. 552). This passage has been relied on by counsel for the petitioner in this case and he contends, that for the same reason for which the Supreme Court struck down the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act (XV of 1955 as amended by Act X of 1957), the statute impugned in this petition, the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960, must also be removed from the statute book.

2. It is necessary to refer to the arguments advanced in support of this contention. They were mainly twofold. Firstly, it was urged that the State Legislature had no legislative competency to pass the Act impugned. Secondly, it was argued that the statute, the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 1960, is discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.

3. In support of the first of these contentions, counsel referred to item 45 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. He said that the Act does not purport to be a tax on agricultural income and would not therefore, fall under item 46 of the same List. His contention is that it would not fall under item 45 either, for, according to him, the tax imposed is not on land, but if it amounts to anything, it can only be termed to be a tax on trees. In order to understand the scope of this contention, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the statute. The preamble of the statute says:

"Whereas it is expedient to provide for the levy of an additional tax on plantations in the State of Kerala."

And "plantation" is defined in S.2 (6):

"'plantation' means land used for growing one or more of the following:

(i) cocoanut trees;

(ii) arecanut trees;

(iii) rubber plants;

(iv) coffee plants;

(v) tea plants;

(vi) cardamom plants;

(vii) pepper wines." The charging section, S.3, reads as follows:

"3. Charge of plantation tax: (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, for every financial year commencing on and from the first day of April, 1960, there shall be charged in respect of the lands comprised in plantations held by a person on the corresponding valuation date an additional tax (hereinafter referred to as 'plantation tax'] at the rates specified in Schedule I; and the person holding such plantations shall be liable to pay the plantation tax.

(2) The plantation tax assessed under this Act shall be payable by the assessee for every financial year until the extent of plantations held by him is revised and the plantation tax is assessed on the basis of the revised extent under sub-section (3), and from the financial year immediately following the revision the plantation tax assessed on behalf of such revision shall be payable.

(3) The extent of plantations held by a person determined under S.5 shall ordinarily be revised at the end of five years, but the assessing authority may, either suo mote or on application by an assessee, revise the extent so determined, before the expiry of five years; and where such extent has been revised as aforesaid, the plantation tax payable ther