1968 (4) TMI 86 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative Competence
2. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution
3. Machinery for Determining Market Value
4. Retrospective Operation
5. Excessive Delegation and Arbitrary Power

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legislative Competence:
The primary issue was whether the Madras Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, fell under Entry 49 of List II (State List) or Entry 86 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The court held that the tax on urban land based on its market value fell within the ambit of Entry 49 of List II, which allows the State to levy taxes on lands and buildings. The argument that the tax should be based on income or annual value was rejected, affirming that the State Legislature had the competence to levy a tax on the capital value of urban land.

2. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that the Act violated Articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution, as it imposed an unreasonable and confiscatory tax burden. The court examined whether the tax was discriminatory or imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right to hold property. It was found that the tax's incidence, when combined with existing property taxes, could lead to an excessive and unequal burden on property owners, especially in cases where the tax exceeded the income derived from the property.

3. Machinery for Determining Market Value:
The court scrutinized the provisions for determining the market value of urban land under Section 6 of the Act. It was argued that the lack of clear guidelines and the reliance on the subjective opinion of the Assistant Commissioner or Tribunal led to arbitrary and capricious assessments. The court noted that the absence of a statutory framework for determining market value, especially for built-up sites, resulted in unequal and unjust tax burdens, violating the principles of equality and reasonableness.

4. Retrospective Operation:
The Act was given retrospective effect from July 1, 1963, which was challenged as unreasonable. The court held that while the legislature had the power to enact laws with retrospective effect, such laws must not impose unreasonable burdens on taxpayers. The retrospective application of the Act was deemed necessary to address the budgetary implications of the invalidation of the previous Act, and thus, it was not found to be unreasonable.

5. Excessive Delegation and Arbitrary Power:
Section 6 of the Act, which allowed the Assistant Commissioner or Tribunal to determine the market value based on their opinion, was found to be an excessive delegation of power. The court held that the provision lacked clear guidelines and safeguards, leading to arbitrary and capricious assessments. This excessive delegation of power was deemed unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The court struck down Section 6 of the Madras Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, as unconstitutional due to its arbitrary and capricious nature, which violated Articles 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution. The rest of the Act was upheld, but the assessments and demands based on the invalidated Section 6 were declared void. The petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.