Back
1996 JLJ 552
A.K. Mathur, C.J. and S.K. Kulshrestha, J.
High Court of M.P. Employees‘ Association v. State of M.P. and others
W.P. No. 2424 of 1995; Decided on 25.3.1996.
(2) Constitution of India --Art. 276 (3) -- power of Parliament to impose taxes as professions, trades, callings and employment has been saved -- idea is to give limited power to State also to collect such taxes -- rider of quantum of Rs. 2,500/- has been imposed. [Para 7
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 276 - Sch. VII, List I, Entry 83 -- parliament alone is competent to enact laws relating to taxation on income -- provision under Art. 276 is an exception which authorises State also to enact such laws. AIR 1974 SC 685, 1993 (2) MPWN 222 followed. ILR 1979 (2) Kerala 454, AIR 1969 All. 317 (FB) and AIR 1966 Bom. 15 relied on. AIR 1980 SC 1088 distinguished. [Paras 7 & 8
(4) Vriti Kar Adhiniyam, 1995 (M.P.) -- Ss. 4, 5 and Schedule – non-providing benefit like Income Tax Act - does not make the provision invalid - Court cannot direct the Legislature -- provisions under the two Acts are also different. [Para 12
(5) Vriti Kar Adhiniyam, 1995 (M.P.) –S.5 -- Constitution of India --Art. 14 -- certain deductions available to one class of persons while not available to another class under the Act -- two classes are different and not one - provisions under the Act cannot be struck down as ultra vires of Art. 14 of Constitution. [Para 13
(6) Constitution of India -- Art. 14 -- M.P. Vriti Kar Adhiniyam, 1995 -- S.5 -- certain deductions available to one class while not available to another class under the Act - two classes different -- Art. 14 not infringed. [Para 13
(7) Vriti Kar Adhiniyam, 1995 (M.P.) -- Ss. 3 (3), 4 and 5 -- option under S. 3 (3) to pay tax according to salaried class of person - is limited - it does not make all classes as one -- Act has specifically recognised different classes -distinction between the classes is not obliterated. AIR 1963 SC 864, AIR 1903 SC 1336, AIR 1968 SC 658 and AIR 1969 SC 378 distinguished. [Para 14
(8) Vriti Kar Adhiniyam, 1995 (M.P.) -- S.5 -- no provision of deduction made for salaried employees while made for other class -- this anomaly should be avoided by the State Government. [Para 16
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 276¼1½ rFkk lkroha vuqlwph] lwph 2] çfof"V 60 & jkT; fo/kkueaMy çfof"V 60 & ds v/khu o`fÙk;ksa] O;kikjks] vkthfodkvksa vkSj fu;kstu ij dj vf/kjksfir dj ldrh gS & ,sls vf/kjksi.k ds fy, mUeqfDr vuq-276 ¼1½ ds v/khu nh xbZ gSA ¿iSjk 7 ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-276 ¼3½ & o`fÙk;ksa] O;kikjksa] vkthfodkvksa vkSj fu;kstu ij dj vf/kjksfir djus dh laln dh ‘kfDr O;ko`Ùk gS & mís‘; jkT; dks Hkh ,sls djks dh olwyh dh lhfer ‘kfDr nsuk gS & #-2]500@& ds ifjek.k dh mifjdk vf/kjksfir dh xbZ gSA ¿iSjk 7 ¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-276 & lkroha vuqlwph] lwph 1 çfof"V 83 & vk; ij djk/kku ls lacaf/kr fof/k vf/kfu;fer djus ds fy, dsoy laln l{ke gS & vuq-276 ds v/khu mica/k ,d viokn gS tks jkT; dks Hkh ,slh fof/k vf/kfu;fer djus ds fy, çkf/kÑr djrk gSA , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 685 rFkk 1993 ¼2½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 222 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA vkb ,y vkj 1979 ¼2½ dsjy 454] , vkb vkj 1969 bykgkckn 317 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ rFkk , vkb vkj 1966 cacbZ 15 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 1088 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 7 rFkk 8 ¼4½ o`fÙk dj vf/kfu;e] 1995 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 4] 5 rFkk vuqlwph & vk; dj vf/kfu;e ds tSlh lqfo/kk micaf/kr ugha & mica/k vfof/kekU; ugha gks tkrk & U;k;ky; fo/kku&eaMy dks funsf‘kr ugha dj ldrk & nksuksa vf/kfu;eksa ds v/khu mica/k Hkh fHkUu gSaA ¿iSjk 12 ¼5½ o`fÙk dj vf/kfu;e] 1995 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 5 & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-14 & vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dfri; NwV ,d oxZ ds O;fDr;ksa dks miyC/k tcfd ,d vU; oxZ dks vuqiyC/k & nksuksa oxZ fHkUu gS] ,d ugha & vf/kfu;e dks miyC/k dks lafo/kku ds vuq-14 ds vf/kdkjkrhr ekurs gq, vfHk[kafMr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿iSjk 13 ¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-14 & e-ç- o`fÙk dj vf/kfu;e] 1995 & /kkjk 5 & vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dfri; NwV ,d oxZ dks miyC/k tcfd ,d vU; oxZ dks vuqiyC/k & nksuksa oxZ fHkUu & vuq-14 dk vfrya?ku ugha gqvkA ¿iSjk 13 ¼7½ o`fÙk dj vf/kfu;e] 1995 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 3 ¼3½ ] 4 rFkk 5 & oSrfud oxZ ds O;fDr ds vuqlkj dj ds lank; dk /kkjk 3¼3½ ds v/khu fodYi & lhfer gS & lHkh oxks± dks ,d tSlk ugha cukrk & vf/kfu;e }kjk fofHkUu oxks± dks fofufnZ"Vr % ekU; fd;k x;k gS & oxksZ ds chp foHksn feVk;k ugha x;k gSA , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 864] , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 1336] , vkb vkj 1968 ,l lh 658 rFkk , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 378 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 14 ¼8½ o`fÙk dj vf/kfu;e] 1995 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 5 & oSrfud deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, NwV dk dksbZ mica/k ugha fd;k x;k tcfd vU; oxZ ds fy, fd;k x;k & jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl fo"kerk dk ifjotZu fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¿iSjk 16
A.K. Mathur, C.J.--1. All the batch of writ petitions mentioned in the annexed schedule (Not reproduced) involve common question of law and facts; therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. For convenient disposal of all these petitions, the facts giving in WP. No. 2424/95 are taken into consideration.
3. The petitioner-Association by this writ petition, has challenged the validity of sections 4 and 5 of the M.P. Vriti Kar Adhiniyam, 1995, and also the Schedule of the Adhiniyam. The petitioner has also prayed that the same may be declared as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and also Article 229, and also prayed that the order dated 12.6.1995 passed by the respondent No.2 may be quashed.
4. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are thus: The petitioner is a High Court of M.P. Employees' Association and the same is registered with its Registration No. 7701. The aims and objects of the petitioner-Association is to protect claims, interest of Officers and Staff/Employees of the Registry of the High Court and also to espouse the causes on their behalf for their betterment etc. The Madhya Pradesh Vriti Vyapar Aajivika Aur Sewayojan Kar Adhiniyam, 1966, was amended by the M.P. Act No. 20 of 1990, and was published in M.P. Rajpatra dated 21.9.1990 w.e.f. 1st April, 1990. The Schedule appended thereto' was also revised. This came for challenge before this Court in Misc. Petition No. 629/91. But, thereafter, a new Act came into force as Act No. 16/95, on 10.5.1995 which was published in M.P. Gazette (Extra ordinary) on 16.5.1995 and the said Act is known as 'M.P. Vriti Kar Adhiniyam, 1995', (hereinafter referred to as the ACT"). Therefore, now, the validity of this amended Act has been challenged by this petition. It has been pointed out that an employee serving in a village or township or a city has to pay equal professional tax on the sole basis of his salary. It has also been pointed out that the classification on the basis of population is irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the employee of less than five years service has to pay tax but a practitioner having less than five years practice has been exempted. Therefore, it has been submitted that there is discrimination between the two categories. It is pointed out that certain deductions have been made permissible from the gross income of a person who practises a profession under section 5 of the Act, but same concessions are not being made available to the employees; therefore, they have been discriminated. It is also contended that section 4 of the Act is violative of Article 229 of the Constitution of India because under Article 229, service conditions of the employees of the High Court are governed by the rules framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court; therefore, this Act cannot lay down the condition for imposing this tax A challenge has also been made to the power of search and seizure.
5. A return has been filed by the respondents and the respondents have taken the position that the said Act has been enacted by the Legislature in exercise of power under: Entry 60 of IInd List of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution; therefore, the validity of the said Act cannot he challenged as Legislature is competent to enact the law under the Constitution. It is submitted that this Act has been enacted to levy tax on the persons in employment, professions and other categories of persons and annual income therefrom was estimated to be of Rs.40 crores which would be helpful to the State to meet part of it" expenditure. It is also submitted that out of this amount; the amount will be provided for relief to educated unemployed and to secure for them some sort of sustenance during such period of unemployment. It is also submitted that the professionals cannot be compared with the salaried class because their conditions are different and they cannot be compared with each othe
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
