| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 3039 1971 SLD 3039 = 1971 PTD 302 |
Kerala High Court
Original Petition No. 81 of 1966, decided on 23rd February 1968.
Presented By: P. T. Raman Nayar and K. K. Mathew, JJ
M. A. Hameed, T. C. Karunakaran and P. K. Shamsuddin for Petitioner. C. T. Peter for
Respondent No. 1. C. Sankaram Nair (Central Government Pleader) for the Attorney-General.
Original Petition No. 81 of 1966, decided on 23rd February 1968.
Presented By: P. T. Raman Nayar and K. K. Mathew, JJ
M. A. Hameed, T. C. Karunakaran and P. K. Shamsuddin for Petitioner. C. T. Peter for
Respondent No. 1. C. Sankaram Nair (Central Government Pleader) for the Attorney-General.
Smt. KADIJA BAI
VERSUS
WEALTH TAX OFFICER, A-WARD, MATTANCHERRY
Law: Constitution of India
Section: 14
Law: Wealth Tax Act, 1957
Section: A (c), B
Wealth tax-Additional tax on urban lands and buildings --Whether discriminatory-Constitutional validity-Constitution of India, Art. 14-Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Sched., Part I, paras. A (c) & B. The additional wealth tax on the value of urban lands and buildings imposed by clause (c) of Paragraph A and Paragraph B of Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth Tax Act is not discriminatory and does not contravene Article 14 of the Constitution, and the levy of such tax is not, therefore, invalid on the ground that it is discriminatory. The differentiation made by the statute in respect of the levy of additional wealth tax on the basis of the population of the area concerned is based on a rational classification having regard to the objects of the Act. JUDGMENT RAMAN NAYAR, J.-The petitioner, an owner of non -agricultural land and buildings in Mattancherry, Cochin, protests against the levy of what has been called additional wealth tax, to the extent of Rs. 1,800 and odd made on her under clause (c) of Paragraph A read with rules 1 and 2 of Paragraph B of Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth Tax Act, 1957-for short, the Act. She attacks the levy as discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and she seeks to have it quashed by this application brought under article 226 of the Constitution. The legislative entry authorising the imposition of the tax is Entry 86 of the Union List, "Taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural land, of individuals companies ; taxes on the capital of companies." And the law that actually imposes the tax is the charging section of the Act, namely, section 3, which says that a tax called wealth tax shall be charged in accordance with the provisions of the Act in respect of the net wealth of every individual, Hindu undivided family, and company at the rates specified in the Schedule to the Act. Net wealth, according to section 2(m) of the Act, is the amount by which the aggregate value of the assets of a person exceeds the aggregate value of his debts, and, by section 2(e), agricultural land and certain other assets are excluded from the scope of the word "assets".…