9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order under section 65(5) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 based on classification of "standard acre" under section 2(vv)(vi) of the Act. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order under section 65(5) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, specifically focusing on the classification of "standard acre" under section 2(vv)(vi) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the substitution of the definition of "standard acre" by an Amendment Act was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that grouping sugarcane, banana, and coconut together, and eliminating distinctions within coconut cultivation, led to unequal treatment. However, the court noted that the affidavit supporting the petition did not clearly establish the discriminatory features. The court emphasized that in taxation matters, the burden of proving discrimination lies heavily on the party challenging the legislation, especially when dealing with a taxing statute. The court further examined the rationale behind the amendment, which aimed to bring cash crops under higher taxation than food crops. The court opined that this objective did not introduce discrimination and was a valid basis for the legislative change. It emphasized that the legislature has the authority to determine the articles to be taxed, the method of taxation, and the tax rates. As long as the legislation is not shown to blatantly violate equality provisions, the court does not interfere with tax laws. The court highlighted that in tax matters, the legislature enjoys significant discretion in classification and taxation decisions, as long as they are reasonable. Ultimately, the court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition, rejecting the plea to strike down the impugned order. The court concluded that there was no evidence of discrimination or violation of equality rights in the legislative amendment, thereby denying the petitioner's request for relief.
|
