No violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

These are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In W.P. No. 1023 of 1961, the petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of prohibition to forbear the Wealth-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle ‘A’ Madras, from taking further proceedings, pursuant to the notices issued by him on 15th of June, 1960 and 18th of August, 1961. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1060 of 1961 also prays for a Writ of prohibition for restraining the Expenditure-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle ‘A ‘Madras, from taking further proceedings, in pursuance of his notice dated 24th of August, 1960. The main attack of the petitioners in these two petitions is levelled against the validity of the charging provision of the Wealth-tax Act and the Expenditure-tax Act.

The petitioner in W.P. No. 1023 of 1961 states that he is the manager of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his sons, and that he is an assessee on the file of the Wealth-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle ‘A ‘Madras. The Wealthtax Officer issued a notice dated 15th June, 1960 under section 14 (2) of the Wealthtax Act, 1957, calling upon the petitioner to file a return of his wealth, for the purpose of making an assessment under that Act, for the assessment year 1960-1961. This petitioner submitted his return. The Wealth-tax Officer next issued a notice dated 18th of August, 1961 requiring the petitioner to furnish certain information necessary for making the assessment. Without furnishing that information, the present petition has been preferred, on the ground that the charging section of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, section 3, is invalid and unconstitutional. The petitioner alleges that section 3 violates the equality clause of the Constitution. The point of attack is . that section 3 is discriminatory inasmuch as it singles out only the Hindu undivided family, leaving out from its ambit Marumakkattayam tarwads, particularly the Mappilla tarwads governed by Mappilla Marumakkattayam Act, 1939. In support of this contention reliance is placed upon a decision of the Kerala High Court in C.K.Mammad Keyi v. Wealth-tax Officer1, in which it has been held that the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, denies equal protection of the laws to Hindu undivided families, as such families have been singled out by the Act from other similar joint families. The Department has filed a counter affidavit stating that section 3 is not in any way discriminatory, that all persons owning wealth fall within the category of individuals or Hindu undivided families, that, if Marumakkattayam tarwads. or Mappilla tarwads could not be comprehended within the expression Hindu undivided family, they would yet come within the description of ‘individuals’ So the only question in W.P. No. 1023 of 1961 is whether section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioner in W.P. No. 1060 of 1961 states that he is the manager of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his sons, and that he is an assessee on the file of the Expenditure-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle ‘A’ Madras It is alleged that the Expenditure-tax Officer issued a notice on 24th of August 1960 under section 13 (2) of the Expenditure-tax Act (XXIX of 1957), calling upon the petitioner to file a return of his expenditure in connection with the proposed assessment under that Act for the assessment year 1960-61, and that the petitioner has filed a return. The Officer issued a further notice on 27th October, 1960 making a provisional demand for payment of a sum of Rs. 17,002-40 nP. alleged to be the expenditure-tax payable by the petitioner for the year ending 31st March, 1960 relevant to the assessment year 1960-61. The petitioner submits that section 3 of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, which authorises the levy of expenditure-tax on every individual or Hindu undivided family violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The ground of attack is thus set out in paragraph 6 o