1964 (2) TMI 7 - SC - Wealth-tax

Whether Parliament was not competent to include Hindu undivided families in the charging section 3 of the Act in view of the provision in Entry 86 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution ? Whether the provision relating to Hindu undivided families was discriminatory and denied equal protection of laws and was, therefore, hit by article 14 of the Constitution? Held that - We have come to the conclusion that these cases must be remanded to the High Court for further consideration after giving parties an opportunity to place full facts in connection with the application of article 14 before it. The High Court itself pointed out that there was no averment on behalf of the writ petitioners before the High Court (now respondents before us) on the lines on which the argument finally developed at the bearing. It is true that some adjournments were granted by the High Court in this connection ; but we are not satisfied that the case for the application or otherwise of article 14 was properly put before the High Court by either side. We should like also to point out that the High Court seemed to take the view that it was for the State to show that article 14 was not applicable. This is not correct, for it is for the party who comes forward with the allegation that equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws is being denied to him to adduce facts to prove such denial. Appeals allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Constitutionality of the Wealth-tax Act, No. 27 of 1957 - Inclusion of Hindu undivided families in the charging section 3 of the Act - Discriminatory nature of the provision in relation to Hindu undivided families and Muslim Mopla tarwads - Application of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

The Supreme Court dealt with five appeals challenging the constitutionality of the Wealth-tax Act, No. 27 of 1957, involving Hindu undivided families and Muslim Mopla tarwads. The main contentions before the High Court were twofold: first, the competence of Parliament to include Hindu undivided families in the charging section of the Act, and second, the discriminatory nature of the provision concerning Hindu undivided families under Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court held that Parliament was competent to include Hindu undivided families in the Act but found that there was discrimination between Hindu undivided families and Muslim Mopla tarwads, leading to a violation of Article 14.

The High Court observed that the Act did not provide for Muslim Mopla tarwads, leading to discrimination against them compared to Hindu undivided families. The appellant argued that Muslim Mopla tarwads were negligible in number and were assessed under the Act as individuals. However, the High Court was not convinced by this argument and held that the discrimination existed, thereby concluding that the charging section concerning undivided families was in violation of Article 14.

The Supreme Court decided to remand the cases to the High Court for further consideration to allow both parties to present full facts regarding the application of Article 14. The Court emphasized the importance of parties presenting specific pleas and evidence to determine the constitutional validity of statutory provisions effectively. It was noted that the High Court should not solely rely on the State to disprove the application of Article 14 but that the party alleging denial of equality before the law must provide supporting facts. The Court stressed the need for proper allegations and evidence to be presented before the High Court for a satisfactory determination of the constitutional validity of statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and remanded the cases for the High Court to reconsider the application of Article 14 after allowing both parties to present their respective cases supported by facts and figures. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs in the Supreme Court.