ASMA BEEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner resides and owns buildings within the limits of the Municipality of Ernakulam and derives income with respect to them by way of rent. She was being assessed to tax in respect of such income, formerly under S.86(1)(b) of the Cochin Municipal Act, 18 of 1113, and latterly, under the corresponding S.110(1)(b) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960. When demands were made for payment of such tax for the half years of 1962-63, she filed this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutionality of S.110(1)(b) so far as it relates to "income from investment." This section so far as it is relevant is as follows:-

(2.) Art.277 may be extracted for ready reference:

(3.) Learned Government Pleader invited my attention to the doctrine of pith and substance, which is often applied in determining questions of legislative competency to make enactments. That doctrine is too well settled to require any restatement by me at this time of the day. Though it has no direct application here, it is helpful perhaps to determine, whether the Cochin Municipal Act can be deemed to be a law relating to income tax and supertax. The pith and substance of that Act is not taxation, but Municipal administration. I also find it difficult to accept the argument, that at least S.86(1)(b) of the Cochin Municipal Act must to the extent it relates to income from investments, be held to be a law relating to income tax or super tax within the meaning of S.13(1) of the Finance Act, 1950 merely because the Supreme Court has held that it is a tax on income.