SRIDHARAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugns an order passed under section 65(5) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). THE petitioner expresses a grievance with reference to the classification of "standard acre" under section 2(vv)(vi) of the Act, which reads as follows : "'standard acre'means - one-half of an acre of land used for growing banana, coconut or sugarcane." THE above provision is the one substituted by the Tamil Nadu Act XXXII of 1979. Originally, "standard acre" for coconut was defined as follows : "(1) one acre of land used for growing coconut and irrigated from Government source of irrigation; or (2) two acres of land for growing coconut and not falling under category (1)."

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the substitution brought about by the Amendment Act is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is well-settled that whoever pleads discrimination must expose the relevant and convincing features in substantiation thereof. But, unfortunately in the present case, the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition does not set forth the features of discrimination with any amount of clarity. It is stated that by putting sugarcane, banana and coconut in one group, equal protection guaranteed under the Constitution is violated. In another place, it is stated that by wiping out the distinction regarding different topes of coconut-bearing trees, an element of unequal treatment is introduced. In yet another place, it is claimed that the Amendment Act has made inroads into the classification and has done away with the classification, referring to the classification of growing coconut by Government source of irrigation or otherwise. It must be remembered that we are dealing with a taxing statute. The justification for the amendment is stated to be the need to bring the cash crops under the fold of taxation under a higher slab than that of food crops. I do not think that the said reason for introducing the amendment is totally irrelevant and brings in any element of discrimination.Equally so, it cannot be stated that the dispensing with the earlier classification of growing coconut through Government source of irrigation or other source has brought in any discrimination or has abridged any equality right of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution. It is not claimed as a case of imposition of unequal taxes on persons equally placed. The Legislature which is competent to levy a tax is necessarily given the full freedom to determine which articles should be taxed and in what manner and at what rate. It is for the person who assails a legislation as discriminatory to establish that it is not based on a valid classification and this burden is all the more heavier when the legislation under attack is a taxing statute. So long as the power to tax is there, it is open to the Legislature to decide the basis of taxation and to alter it from time to time and unless it is conclusively substantiated before this court that the taxing Act has patently transgressed the equality provision, there will be no room for striking down such legislation or the order passed on the basis of such legislation. In the matter of taxation laws, the court permits as greater latitude to the discretion of the Legislature; and the State is allowed to pick, exclude, club together and classify articles so long as it is reasonable. No unreasonableness has been made out here in the present case.