2015 (10) TMI 2863 - HC - Indian Laws

Constitutional validity of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax (Amendment) Act 2013 - new provision has been introduced for levying collection of a cess for the Kerala Cultural Activists Welfare Fund constituted under the Kerala Cultural Activitsts Welfare Fund Act - absence of quid pro quo - HELD THAT - In United Provinces v. Mt.Atiqa Begum Other 1940 (12) TMI 25 - FEDERAL COURT their Lordships upheld the principle that the question whether any impugned Act is within any of the three lists or in none at all is to be answered by considering the Act as a whole and deciding whether in pith and substance the Act is with respect to particular categories or not and held that in doing so the relevant factors are the design and the purport of the Act both as disclosed by its language and the effect which it would have in its actual operation. The pith and substance of the impugned legislation is collection of an amount from the viewers for the collective welfare of the artists. The substance of the legislation is within the powers conferred under Entry 62 of State List. Even if the charge levied is construed as a cess it appears to be justifiable as it is not capable of any controversy that the benefits are indeed meant to be and are bound to be conferred on the cultural activists including those artists in the film world. This would be an incentive to attract more capable persons to the field and ultimately the viewers would be benefited. It has been held by the apex court in The Check Post Officer Others v. K.P. Abdulla Bros. 1970 (11) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT that an entry confers power upon the legislature to legislate for matters ancillary or incidental thereto. As long as the legislation is within the permissible field in pith and substance the objection would not be entertained merely on the ground that while enacting legislation provision has been made for a matter which though germane for the purpose for which competent legislation is made it covers an aspect beyond it. In a series of decisions the apex court has opined that if an enactment substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred by the Constitution upon the legislature enacting it it cannot be held to be invalid merely because it incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another legislature. Viewed in that profile this Court is of the view that the challenge put forward by the petitioners is on a misconception of facts and law. A legislative entry does not merely enunciate powers. It specifies a field of legislation and the widest import and significance should be attached to it. Power to legislate on a specified topic includes power to legislate in respect of matters which may fairly and reasonably said to be comprehended therein. Therefore the collection of 3/as provided by the Amendment Act according to me is within the legislative competence of the State; and therefore the same does not call for any interference of this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Conclusion - i) A legislative entry does not merely enunciate powers. It specifies a field of legislation and the widest import and significance should be attached to it. ii) The constitutional validity of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax (Amendment) Act 2013 upheld. Petition dismissed.

Summary

The judgment concerns the constitutional validity of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax (Amendment) Act, 2013, which introduced a cess for the Kerala Cultural Activists' Welfare Fund. The petitioners, comprising film exhibitors and viewers, challenged the Act on several grounds, primarily questioning the State's legislative competence to impose such a cess.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this case were:

• Whether the State Legislature had the competence to enact the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax (Amendment) Act, 2013, under the Constitution of India.
• Whether the imposition of a cess for the Kerala Cultural Activists' Welfare Fund was constitutionally valid.
• Whether there was a lack of quid pro quo between the cess imposed on film viewers and the benefit to cultural activists.
• Whether the legislation was a piece of colorable legislation lacking legislative competence.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Legislative Competence and Constitutional Validity

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioners argued that the State could not impose a tax or cess referable to the Concurrent List, specifically Entry 23. They cited the Supreme Court decision in Koluthara Exports Ltd. v. State of Kerala, which held that a State cannot impose a burden on a person not connected with the beneficiary section of society.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the levy of cess was within the legislative competence of the State under Entries 5 and 62 of the State List, which allow for the collection of taxes on entertainment and business by local governments. The Court distinguished the present case from Koluthara's case, noting the absence of a direct contribution requirement in the impugned Act.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that the cess was intended for the welfare of cultural activists, a broad category including various artists, which justified the levy.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that a legislative entry not only enunciates powers but specifies a field of legislation, supporting the State's competence to enact the law.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court addressed the petitioners' reliance on Koluthara's case by highlighting the differences in the legislative framework and purpose of the cess.
• Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Act was within the State's legislative competence and did not violate constitutional provisions.

Quid Pro Quo and Colorable Legislation

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioners argued that there was no quid pro quo as the film viewers had no direct benefit from the welfare fund.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the cess was a special kind of tax used for a specific purpose, distinguishing it from general taxes. It cited precedents emphasizing the broad interpretation of legislative entries.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the welfare fund benefitted a wide range of cultural activists, indirectly benefiting the film industry and viewers by promoting cultural activities.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that a legislative enactment is valid if it substantially falls within the powers conferred by the Constitution, even if it incidentally encroaches on another field.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court dismissed the petitioners' arguments of colorable legislation, finding that the Act's primary purpose was within the State's legislative competence.
• Conclusions: The Court held that the absence of a direct quid pro quo did not invalidate the cess, as it served a legitimate state interest.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Court noted, "A legislative entry does not merely enunciate powers. It specifies a field of legislation and the widest import and significance should be attached to it."
• Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that legislative competence must be assessed by considering the Act's pith and substance, not merely its incidental effects.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax (Amendment) Act, 2013, and confirming the State's legislative competence to impose the cess.