9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the charging provision of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 2. Validity of the charging provision of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957. 3. Whether section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, offends Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. Whether section 3 of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, offends Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. Classification and comparison between Hindu undivided families and Mappilla Marumakkathayam tarwads. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the charging provision of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957: The petitioner in W.P. No. 1023 of 1961 challenged the validity of section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the grounds that it violates the equality clause of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that section 3 is discriminatory as it singles out Hindu undivided families while excluding Marumakkathayam tarwads, particularly Mappilla tarwads governed by the Mappilla Marumakkathayam Act, 1939. The court examined whether section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act is unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws. 2. Validity of the charging provision of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957: The petitioner in W.P. No. 1060 of 1961 similarly challenged section 3 of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, arguing that it discriminates against Hindu undivided families by not including other joint families such as Marumakkathayam tarwads. The court noted that section 3 of the Expenditure-tax Act uses the same expression, "Individuals or Hindu undivided family," as in the Wealth-tax Act. Therefore, the court decided that the same reasoning applied to both Acts and did not discuss the Expenditure-tax Act separately. 3. Whether section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, offends Article 14 of the Constitution: The court analyzed whether section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act is repugnant to the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14. The court noted that a taxing enactment is not outside the scope of the equality clause and that the government must hold the scales even among subjects similarly placed. The court emphasized that classification for tax purposes must be rational and intelligible, with due regard to the object and purpose of the Act. The court concluded that the classification of individuals and Hindu undivided families is reasonable and does not violate Article 14. 4. Whether section 3 of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, offends Article 14 of the Constitution: As the court decided to apply the same reasoning to both the Wealth-tax Act and the Expenditure-tax Act, it concluded that section 3 of the Expenditure-tax Act also does not violate Article 14. The court found that the classification of individuals and Hindu undivided families is reasonable and does not result in unconstitutional discrimination. 5. Classification and comparison between Hindu undivided families and Mappilla Marumakkathayam tarwads: The court examined the nature and characteristics of Hindu undivided families and Mappilla Marumakkathayam tarwads. It noted that while both are described as "family corporations," there are significant differences between the two. The court highlighted that Hindu undivided families are governed by agnatic relationships, while Marumakkathayam tarwads follow a matriarchal system. The court also pointed out differences in the right to partition and the management of family properties. The court concluded that Hindu undivided families and Mappilla tarwads are not similar subjects entitled to equal treatment under the equality clause of the Constitution. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the charging sections of the Wealth-tax Act and the Expenditure-tax Act do not violate the equality clause of the Constitution. The court found that the classification of individuals and Hindu undivided families is reasonable and that Hindu undivided families and Mappilla tarwads are not similar subjects entitled to equal treatment. The rule nisi issued in each of the petitions was discharged, and the petitioners were ordered to pay the costs of the respondent in each case.
|
