9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 2. Legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Wealth-tax Act in relation to Jammu and Kashmir. 3. Interpretation of relevant constitutional provisions and legislative entries. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutional Validity of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957: The primary question addressed was whether the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is constitutionally valid as it applies to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioners argued that Parliament lacked the legislative competence to enact this Act concerning Jammu and Kashmir. 2. Legislative Competence of Parliament: The court examined the legislative competence of Parliament under the modified Articles 246 and 248 of the Constitution, as applicable to Jammu and Kashmir. Article 246 grants Parliament exclusive power to legislate on matters in List I (Union List) and concurrent power on matters in List III (Concurrent List). The residuary powers of legislation, however, belong to the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature, not to Parliament. The Union defended the Act under Entry 86 of List I, which pertains to "Taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural land, of individuals and companies; taxes on the capital of companies." The petitioners, however, contended that the subject matter of the Act falls within the State Legislature's residuary powers and not under Entry 86 of List I. 3. Interpretation of Relevant Constitutional Provisions and Legislative Entries: The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to interpret the scope of Entry 86 of List I and the distinction between taxes on net wealth and taxes on the capital value of assets. Key judgments cited include: - Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon [1972] 83 ITR 582: The Supreme Court held that the Wealth-tax Act, as it stood before and after amendment, fell within Parliament's residuary powers under Entry 97 of List I, not Entry 86. The court emphasized that while legislating under Entry 86, it is not necessary for Parliament to provide for the deduction of debts in ascertaining the capital value of assets. - Banarsi Dass v. WTO [1965] 56 ITR 224: The Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) within the scope of Entry 86, rejecting the argument that the term "individual" in Entry 86 excludes HUFs. - Sudhir Chandra Nawn v. WTO [1968] 69 ITR 897: The court clarified that the tax under Entry 86 is imposed on the total assets owned by the assessee, not directly on lands and buildings, distinguishing it from taxes under Entry 49 of List II. - Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Madras v. Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 603: The court reiterated that Entry 86 of List I and Entry 49 of List II have distinct bases of taxation and do not overlap. - Prithvi Cotton Mills v. Broach Borough Municipality [1971] 79 ITR 136: The court confirmed that a tax on lands and buildings based on capital value falls under Entry 49 of List II, not Entry 86 of List I. - D. D. Gouse and Co. v. State of Kerala, AIR 1980 SC 271: The court upheld the validity of the Kerala Building Tax Act, stating that a tax on buildings falls under Entry 49 of List II and not Entry 86 of List I. The court concluded that the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, falls within the residuary powers of legislation, which belong to the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature and not to Parliament. Therefore, the Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India as applied to Jammu and Kashmir. Conclusion: The court held that the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in so far as it purports to be applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, is constitutionally invalid. The writ petitions challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings under the Wealth-tax Act were allowed. The court quashed the impugned assessment proceedings and restrained the respondents from levying and collecting wealth-tax from the petitioners. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
|
