1980 (2) TMI 54 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Constitutional validity of Section 4(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950.
2. Legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact Section 4(2).
3. Whether Section 4(2) is arbitrary, confiscatory, irrational, and discriminatory.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 4(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950:

The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Section 4(2) of the Act, which deems agricultural income derived from land in the possession of a mortgagee to be the income of the mortgagor. They argue that this provision is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and is arbitrary, confiscatory, irrational, and discriminatory.

2. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature to Enact Section 4(2):

The petitioners argue that the legislative subject "taxes on agricultural income" in entry 46 in list II in the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution should be understood as "taxes on the agricultural income of the assessee," and the mortgagor cannot be taxed on the agricultural income derived by the mortgagee. The court examines this argument in light of Article 366(1) of the Constitution and relevant judicial precedents, concluding that the legislative entry does not limit the Legislature's power to tax only the income of the assessee.

3. Whether Section 4(2) is Arbitrary, Confiscatory, Irrational, and Discriminatory:

The court finds that Section 4(2) of the Act is discriminatory as it treats mortgagors who have possessorily mortgaged their lands differently from other landowners. The provision deems the agricultural income derived by the mortgagee to be the income of the mortgagor, even though the mortgagor has no control over the agricultural activities or income derived by the mortgagee. This results in an unfair burden on the mortgagor, who may not even know the quantum of produce obtained by the mortgagee. The court concludes that this provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

Conclusion:

The court holds that Section 4(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, is unconstitutional as it denies equality before the law and equal protection of the law to mortgagors who have transferred possession of their land under a possessory mortgage. The provision is void for violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the court directs the respondents in the respective writ petitions to dispose of the objections raised by the petitioners in light of this decision. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.