MAMMAD KEYI Vs. WEALTH TAX OFFICER CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitioners impugn the constitutionality of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the 'act' and the legality of their assessments to wealth-tax. The petitioner in O. P. 674 of 1958 is the karnavan of a Mappila mirumakkathayam tarwad who was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1957-58, on the net wealth of his tarwad considered as an individual, and to whom a notice of demand, Ext. A-2, dated July 16, 1958, was issued for payment; the petition is to quash Ext. A-2. The petitioner in O. P. 538 of 1959 is the manager of a Hindu undivided family who was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1957-58, on the net wealth of his family as on March 31, 1957, the valuation date as defined in the Act, end had paid it, but against whom, proceedings were commenced by Ext. P-1 notice dated March 24, 1959, under section 17 of the Act, to reassess him, on the net wealth of the family and in particular, on an amount of 17,000 paras of paddy which was said to have escaped assessment; the petition is to quash Ext. P-1 and to restrain the Wealth-tax Officer from proceeding wife the reassessment. The petitioner in O. P. 684 of 1959 was the kamavan of a Nambudiri illom which was partitioned by deed said to have been executed on March 30, 1958, but registered on July 25, 1958, and was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1958-1959 by order Ext. G dated April 30, 1959, on the net wealth as on september 16, 1957, the valuation date, of his family treated as undivided; the petition is to quash Ext G. The petitioner in O. P. 824 of 1959 was the kamavan of another Nambudiri illom, which was said to nave been partitioned by deed executed on August 17, 1958, and was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1958-1959 by an order Ext. A, dated June 18, 1959, on the net wealth, as on august 16, 1957 the valuation date, of his family treated as undivided; the petition is to quash Ext. A and the notice of demand pursuant to it. O. P. 1155 of 1960 is also by the petitioner in O. P. 824 of 1959, to prohibit the Wealth-tax Officer from continuing proceedings to assess his family to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1959-60. When these petitions came on for hearing on January 30, 1961, we directed notice to go to the Attorney General of India, and, accordingly notice has been served.

(2.) IN the light of the arguments advanced before us, without going into details at this stage it does not seem necessary more than to notice the broad grounds which have been raised in these petitions and have been refuted on behalf of the respondent, the concerned Wealth-tax Officer In each case. The most important ground was that Parliament was not competent under Entry 86 in the Union List in the seventh schedule in the Constitution of India to impose a tax, called the wealth-tax, on the capital value of the assets of Hindu undivided families and of mappila Marumakkathayam tarwads, and also on the capital value of the assets of ally person, to the extent that they are or may be deemed to be made up of agricultural income. The assessments to wealth-tax made on the petitioners and the demands pursuant thereto were impugned on several grounds and in particular, the assessment of the petitioner in O. P. 674 of 1958, as on a Mappila Marumakkathayam tarwad, was contended to he not warranted by the provisions of the Act, and those of the petitioners in O. P. 684 of 1959 and O. P. 824 of 1959 were impeached as violative of Section 20 of the Act, which prescribes the procedure for the assessment of a hindu undivided family upon partition. At the hearing, it was urged for the petitioner in O. P. 684 of 1959, that under Entry 86" in the Union List, Parliament could impose a wealth-tax only on individual human beings and on companies, and that too, only on the capital value of their assets to the exclusion of lands, buildings and of what may be deemed to be agricultural income, such a tax on lands and building being, according to the argument covered by Entry 49 and a tax on agricultural income being covered by Entry 46 in the State List.

(3.) THESE entries may be set out here with advantage. Entry 86 in the Union List reads-: "taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of the agricultural lands, of individuals and companies; taxes on the capital of companies". Entry 46 in the State List reads : "taxes on agricultural income" and Entry 49 in the State List reads : "taxes on lands and buildings. " it was argued that the term "individuals' in Entry 86 of the Union List cannot, on any reasonable view, comprehend joint families or tarwads of Hindus or of mohammedans and that construing the entries as they must be, in their widest amplitude, but so AS to reconcile them in the event of conflict, if necessary, even by restricting the scope of any of them and applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, Entry 49 in the State List, which must be deemed to include a tax on the capital value of lands and buildings, and Entry 46 which provides specifically for a tax on agricultural income, are special or particular provisions and they derogate pro tanto, from what is but a general provision in entry 86 in the Union List which authorises a tax on the capital value of assets generally. The rules for interpreting entries in a constitutional enactment conferring legislative power on the basis of which the above argument was advanced, appear to be too well settled to need a restatement by us at this time of the day, and all that is necessary is to see how far the argument based on them can be sustained.