K PRAKASH BASRI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are Chartered Accountants all of whom the practising in and around Mangalore. Having put in more than 5 years in the profession they are in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Profession, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976, liable to pay Profession tax at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- p. a. revised with effect from 1-4-1992 to Rs. 2,200/- p. a. per person. The amount earlier prescribed by the Act being Rs. 250/- p. a. only the petitioners have filed these writ petitions assailing the enhancement as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners made but a solitary submission in support of the petitions. He urged that the enhancement of the tax from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 2000/- p. a. was not only arbitrary and excessive but singled out the Chartered Accountants as a class for a hostile treatment. In the case of other trades, professions and callings argued the learned Counsel the tax was not revised proportionately and was limited to Rs. 500/- p. a. The disproportionate enhancement, which does not apply uniformly to other professionale, it was contended amounted to a hostile discrimination against Chartered Accountants and fell foul of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) IN matters relating to taxation, the Legislature enjoys considerable latitude in not only choosing the subjects, the method of levy and collection of the tax but even in regard to prescribing the rate of such taxes. While fiscal laws enacted by the Legislature are not entirely immune from a challenge based on Article 14, Courts are slow in interfering with the classification made having regard to the inherently difficult task of making such classification to perfection. The Legislature is presumed to be supremely wise and aware of the needs of the society and the fiscal compulsions of the time. Its discriminations are presumed to be for reasons that are good unless the contrary is shown. A heavy burden is cast on any one questioning any such classifications methods or rates prescribed in a fiscal statute enacted by the competent legislature. As to what should be the rate of tax, or the extent of the burden that should fall on the subject is primarily a legislative function with which the Courts do not meddle except in situations where the effect of such legislations may be so patently discriminatory that it becomes difficult to uphold the same. See S. K. Dutta Income-tax Officer v. Lawrence Singh Ingty, AIR 1968 SC 658, The Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1664; Sri Srinivasa Theatre v. Government of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1992 SC 999 and R. K. Garg v. Union of India, (1982) 133 ITR 239 : (AIR 1981 SC 2138 ).