9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989, is called in question in these writ petitions preferred by several tea estates in West Bengal. Legislative background: For a proper appreciation of the questions arising herein, it is necessary to have a glimpse of the legislative history behind the impugned Amendment Act. The West Bengal Legislature enacted the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1953, and the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976, to provide for primary education throughout the State and to provide employment in rural areas respectively. For raising funds for the said purposes, the State Legislature imposed two cesses upon certain lands and buildings in the State. Since the relevant provisions of both the enactments are similar, it would be sufficient to notice the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976. Section 4(1) of the 1976 Act levies rural employment cess on all immovable properties on which road or public work cess is assessed or liable to be assessed according to the provisions of the Cess Act, 1880. Section 4(2), as originally enacted, prescribed different rates in respect of lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso on the ground of lack of legislative competence on the part of the State Legislature. This Court examined the attack based upon article 301 in the first instance. It held that the levy was really on the despatches of tea from the tea estates. It noted that the first proviso to section 4(2)(aa), since deleted, excluded the despatches of tea for sale made at such tea auction centres as may be recognised by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette from the levy. It further pointed out that the second proviso empowered the State Government to fix different rates on despatches of different classes of tea. Section 4(4), it noted further, empowered the Government to exempt such categories of despatches or such percentage of despatches from levy as the Government may think appropriate. Having regard to the said features, the Bench held, the levy was essentially upon despatches though purporting to be a levy upon the tea estates. The entire structure of the levy, the Bench pointed out, led to the conclusion that it was a levy on despatches and not on tea estates and that there was no nexus between the levy and the tea estates. The learned Judges rejected the argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as introduced with retrospective effect from April 1, 1981. Sub-section (2A) reads: "(2A) The rural employment cess shall be levied annually on a tea estate at the rate of twelve paise for each kilogram of green tea leaves produced in such estate. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, sub-section (3) and section 4B.- (i) 'green tea leaves' shall mean the plucked and unprocessed green leaves of the plant Camelia Sinensis (L) O. Kuntze; (ii) 'tea estate' shall mean any land used or intended to be used for growing plant Camelia Sinensis (L) O. Kuntze and producing green tea leaves from such plant, and shall include land comprised in a factory or workshop for producing any variety of the product known commercially as 'tea' made from the leaves of such plant and for housing the persons employed in the tea estate and other lands for purposes ancillary to the growing of such plant and producing green tea leaves from such plant." Clause (a) in sub-section (3) was also substituted which had the effect of making the owner of the tea estate liable for the said cess. The other provisions required the owner of the tea estate to maintain true and correct account of green tea le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "tea estate" further establishes the absence of nexus between the cess and the land; "tea estate" is defined to include not only the land covered by tea bushes but also the land covered by the factory and buildings; even fallow land within the tea estate is within the definition-all the same, the tea leaves produced in the land covered by tea bushes is made the basis of levy of cess upon the entire land comprised in a tea estate; if in a given year, the owner of the estate decides not to pluck the leaves at all, there would be no cess leviable altogether. All this shows that the tax is not really upon the land; there is no direct connection between the land and the levy; the levy is related to some other thing than the land. Strong reliance is placed upon the ratio of the seven-Judge Bench decision of this Court in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1990) 1 SCC 12 and the three- Judge Bench decision in Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1991) 1 SCC 430. It is pointed out that the provision for exemption, pointed out in Buxa Dooars [1989] 74 STC 447 (SC); (1989) 3 SCC 211 as a vitiating factor, still continues under the impugned Act. For all these reasons, it is submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process, the green tea leaves are converted into tea as commercially known and then marketed. It is thus clear that tea estate is a well-understood entity and hence can legitimately and reasonably be classified as a separate category for the purpose of taxation and the rate of tax. According to the State, the impugned cesses are within the purview of "taxes on lands and buildings" in entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. Alternately, they seek to justify it as "land revenue" within the meaning of entry 45 of List II. The scheme of the entries in the three Lists in the Seventh Schedule is set out in the decision of this Court in Sundararamier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1958] 9 STC 298; [1958] SCR 1422 and needs no reiteration. Similarly, the proposition that several entries are legislative heads and must be construed liberally is too well-settled to require any elaboration. It is equally well-recognised that where there are three Lists containing a large number of entries, there is bound to be some overlapping among them. In such a situation, the rule of pith and substance has to be applied to determine to which entry does a given piece of legislation relate. Once it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment of a tax on capital, e.g., in the case of succession to land under the Succession Duties Act in England: In re Elwes (1858) 28 LJ Ex 46, or again it may be the basis of assessment of rates such as the ordinary municipal rates in England, which are neither taxes on income nor taxes on property, but a personal charge on the occupier. Clearly, it is impossible to say that the employment of annual value as the measure of the impugned tax is any indication that it is a tax on income." (Emphasis added) This judgment was affirmed by the Federal Court in Ralla Ram v. Province of East Punjab AIR 1949 FC 81 which has been followed ever since. In Ralla Ram AIR 1949 FC 81 the question was whether the tax imposed by the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1940, was within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature or whether it was in truth and substance a tax upon the income of the person owning the property. The tax was levied on the basis of annual value of the buildings and lands. The "annual value" was to "be ascertained by estimating the gross annual rent at which such land or building with its appurtenances and any furniture that may be left for use or enjoyme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived following, inter alia, the decision of the Federal Court in Ralla Ram AIR 1949 FC 81. In Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee v. Local Board of Barpeta AIR 1965 SC 1561 a Constitution Bench of this Court dealt with the challenge to the constitutionality of an annual tax levied by local boards upon land used for holding markets created by section 62 of the Assam Local Self-Government Act, 1963. While dealing with the challenge, Wanchoo, J., speaking for the court, observed: "........It is well-settled that the entries in the three legislative Lists have to be interpreted in their widest amplitude and, therefore, if a tax can reasonably be held to be a tax on land it will come within entry 49. Further it is equally well- settled that tax on land may be based on the annual value of the land and would still be a tax on land and would not be beyond the competence of the State Legislature on the ground that it is a tax on income. (See Ralla Ram v. Province of East Punjab [1948] FCR 207; AIR 1949 FC 81). It follows, therefore, that the use to which the land is put can be taken into account in imposing a tax on it within the meaning of entry 49 of List II, for the annual value of land which can cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Canada v. Attorney-General for British Columbia [1930] AC 1116, Board of Trustees of Northern Irrigation District v. Independent Orders of Foresters [1940] AC 513. In my opinion this rule of interpretation is equally applicable to the Indian Constitution Act." In Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 74 STC 102; (1989) 3 SCC 634, the Constitution Bench, speaking through M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was), made the following pertinent observations: "The subject of a tax is different from the measure of the levy. The measure of the tax is not determinative of its essential character or of the competence of the Legislature. In Sainik Motors v. State of Rajasthan [1962] 1 SCR 517, the provisions of a State law levying a tax on passengers and goods under entry 56 of List I were assailed on the ground that the State was, in the guise of taxing passengers and goods, in substance and reality taxing the income of the stage carriage operators or, at any rate, was taxing the 'fares and freights' both outside of its powers. It was pointed out that the operators were required to pay the tax calculated at a rate related to the value of the fare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enient to impose that duty at the moment when the excisable article leaves the factory or workshop for the first time upon the occasion of its sale." It was further pointed out, and which is of some relevance to us in this case, that: "The petitioner's reference to legislative practice as determining the scope of the present legislation does not assist them. There are two infirmities in the contention........Secondly, there is no conclusive material indicating that the appropriate Legislature had limited the notion of a tax of this kind within any confines. It is relevant to recall the words of Lord Uthwatt in Wallace Brothers' case [1948] 16 ITR 240 (PC); [1948] LR 75 IA 86 (PC) quoted in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. [1958] 9 STC 353 (SC); [1959] SCR 379: 'The point of the reference is emphatically not to seek a pattern to which a due exercise of the power must conform. The object is to ascertain the general conception involved in the words used in the enabling Act'." It is thus clear from the aforesaid decisions that merely because a tax on land or building is imposed with reference to its income or yield, it does not cease to be a tax on land or building. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as included within the definition of the expression "land revenue". Question, therefore, arose whether such cess levied with reference to or calculated on the basis of amount of royalty can be called a tax on land. It was held that it could not be. It was pointed out that the royalty varies according to the mineral quarried in a given year and if no mineral is quarried, no royalty will be payable but this reasoning, as we shall explain a little later, is not the ratio of the judgment apart from being inapplicable in the case of land or tea estates. The basis of the judgment-and the ratio of the decision-in our respectful opinion is that it was a case where the tax was measured not with reference to or on the basis of the income-yield of the land but with reference to the amount of royalty payable by the lessee to his lessor. It was for this reason that the tax was held to be not upon the land. Royalty is a matter of agreement between the lessor and the lessee; it may also be determined by a statutory provision. But royalty is not the produce of the land; royalty is not the income of the land nor is the royalty the yield of the land-and that is the distinction. Now, it is significan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held for carrying on mining operations in relation to any mineral such per centum of the annual value as the State Government may, by notification, specify from time to time in relation to such mineral." The expression "annual value" occurring in clause (a) (both prior to Amending Act 17 of 1989 and thereafter) was defined in section 7 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of section 7 provided that "in the case of lands held for carrying on mining operations, the annual value shall be the royalty or, as the case may be, the dead rent payable by the persons carrying on mining operation(s) to the Government". It is for this reason that the Division Bench, speaking through Ranganathan, J., held that the case was squarely covered by India Cement (1990) 1 SCC 12. When it was contended by the State that the royalty payable in respect of a land on which mining activity is carried on is only a measure of the tax on land relying upon Ralla Ram AIR 1949 FC 81 and Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee AIR 1965 SC 1561, Ranganathan, J., made the following perceptive observations, which are of great significance to the cases before us: ".......But here the levy is not measured by the income derived by the assessee fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and building can be levied with reference to, i.e., measured on the basis of their yield or income is the uniform view taken in the cases referred to hereinbefore. For instance, how is the property tax levied on a building in a municipality. It is only on the basis of its annual rental value, i.e., on the basis of the rent it is fetching when let out or the rent it would fetch if let out. It is open to the Legislature to say that rent of previous year or the average rent of previous two, three or more years shall be the basis. Indeed, there is nothing to prevent the Legislature from taking the rent of that very year as the basis for levying the tax. In the case of a new building, the tax for the first year would naturally be based upon the rental value for that year. What is rent, if not the income of the building- its yield. In India Cement (1990) 1 SCC 12, the court pointed out that the levy in that case being on royalty, it cannot be called a tax on land. The court said: "But in the instant case, royalty being that which is payable on the extraction from the land and cess being an additional charge on that royalty, cannot, by the parity of the same reasoning, be considered to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. That the basis of this argument is unrealistic and improbable would be evident from the provisions of the Tea Act, an aspect dealt with at a later stage. We are, therefore, of the opinion that taking the quantum of yield of a tea estate for measuring the amount of tax cannot be equated to the situation in India Cement (1990) 1 SCC 12. In judging the validity of taxing laws, it is always instructive to remember the following observations of this Court in R.K. Garg v. Union of India [1982] 1 SCR 947: "Another rule of equal importance is that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion, etc. It has been said by no less a person than Holmes, J., that the Legislature should be allowed some play in the joints, because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait jacket formula and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where, having regard to the nature of the problems required to be dealt with, greater play in the joints has to be allowed to the Legislature. The court should feel more i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the care bestowed on its framing, it is difficult to conceive of a legislation which is not capable of being abused by perverted human ingenuity. The court must therefore adjudge the constitutionality of such legislation by the generality of its provisions and not by its crudities or inequities or by the possibilities of abuse of any of its provisions. If any crudities, inequities or possibilities of abuse come to light the Legislature can always step in and enact suitable amendatory legislation. That is the essence of pragmatic approach which must guide and inspire the Legislature in dealing with complex economic issues." Before we take up the next aspect, we may deal with another submission based upon the separate opinion of G.L. Oza, J., in India Cement (1990) 1 SCC 12. Oza, J., in his separate opinion, concurred with the conclusion arrived at by Mukharji, J., but on a slightly different basis. The learned Judge was of the opinion that whether "royalty is a tax or not is not very material for the purpose or determination of this question in this case". The learned Judge rested his opinion on this basis: the mineral extracted from the land is the result of three elements, viz., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Urban Land Tax v. Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 603 (SC); [1970] 1 SCR 268 and Second Gift-tax Officer v. D.H. Nazareth [1970] 76 ITR 713 (SC); [1971] 1 SCR 195 it is contended by S/Sri K.K. Venugopal, Ashok Desai and R.F. Nariman, learned counsel for the petitioners, that a tax to be within the purview of entry 49 of List II should be a tax directly on the lands and buildings and that in the absence of such direct nexus it would cease to be a tax on lands and buildings. In the first two cases, the question was whether the levy of wealth tax created by the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was outside Parliament's competence inasmuch as it operates as a tax on lands and buildings, which is within the exclusive competence of the State Legislature, while the question in Nazareth [1970] 76 ITR 713 (SC); [1971] 1 SCR 195 was whether the levy of gift-tax created by the Gift-tax Act is a tax on lands and buildings. In the former cases, it was held that wealth-tax is not a tax upon lands and buildings but is a tax upon the wealth of an individual. It was pointed out that the tax was upon the total assets owned by an individual minus his total liabilities, i.e., upon hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought to tax. Tax on lands and buildings is directly imposed on lands and buildings, and bears a definite relation to it. Tax on the capital value of assets bears no definable relation to lands and buildings which may form a component of the total assets of the assessee. By legislation in exercise of power under entry 86, List I, tax is contemplated to be levied on the value of the assets. For the purpose of levying tax under entry 49, List II, the State Legislature may adopt for determining the incidence of tax the annual or the capital value of the lands and buildings. But the adoption of the annual or capital value of lands and buildings for determining tax liability will not, in our judgment, make the fields of legislation under the two entries overlapping." From the above observations, in our opinion, it cannot be inferred that the position of law regarding entry 49 of List II is different from the law obtaining under other entries in the Seventh Schedule. It cannot be. The proposition that the several entries in the Seventh Schedule are merely legislative heads and must be liberally construed applies to all the entries including entry 49 of List II. The above observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... five years by the municipal bodies is a matter of convenience and not a matter of law. The tax can be revised every year, if the municipality so decides. Dr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners conceded-and in our opinion, rightly- that the tax on land or building can be levied and assessed with reference to previous year's income or yield. In such a situation too, the tax may vary from year to year depending upon the income/yield of the previous year. The variation between the amount of tax from year to year, in our opinion, does not reflect upon the character of tax. Dr. Pal evidently draws inspiration for the said argument from the fact that land revenue upon the land is fixed and constant. But this is to ignore the fact that land revenue (entry 45, List II) is different from the tax on lands and buildings contemplated by entry 49 of List II. The characteristics, if any, of the land revenue-assuming for the sake of argument that constancy is one of the characteristics of the land revenue-cannot be attached to the tax under entry 49 to restrict its field of operation. Dr. Pal next contended that while a tax on land or building can be assessed with reference to the previous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld of 400 acres only; thus it is clear, says the learned counsel, that the true nature of the tax is not a tax upon land but upon produce of land comprised in a tea estate. The learned counsel gives yet another example. A tea estate-owner may decide, for his own reasons-justified or unjustified-not to pluck the tea leaves in a given year. He may leave the leaves to wither on the bushes. In such a case, no cess would be payable in respect of the tea estate. If so, the learned counsel asks, can it be said that the tax is connected with land. Would it not be more correct to say that the tax is upon the produce of the land, asks the counsel. In our opinion, the above reasoning is untenable for more than one reason. Once the classification of "tea estate" as a separate category of land, as a separate unit, for the purposes of levy of the said cess is conceded, the edifice of the entire argument falls to the ground. Once, a tea estate is treated validly as a unit for levy of tax/cess-it is not questioned before us-the yield of the land comprised in such unit can validly constitute the basis of levy and assessment. Sri Venugopal stressed that accepting the said contention of the State wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate that the average yield in three out of five preceding years is lower by 25 per cent or more than the district average yield, it can order investigation into the affairs of the tea estate, give appropriate directions and can even assume management of the estate-all with a view to ensure the production of tea at the expected levels. The situation contemplated by the learned counsel, therefore, is an unrealistic one and cannot in any event furnish a ground for holding that there is no reasonable connection between the tax and the land. To repeat, once the tea estate is validly classified as a unit for the purpose of levy of tax (cess) and for applying a particular rate of tax, the levy of tax thereon quantified on the basis of production of tea leaves of such a unit-tea estate-cannot be found fault with. Sri Ashok Desai urged a further contention that inasmuch as the moment tea leaves are plucked, they can no longer be said to be attached to or forming part of the land, levy of tax with reference to such plucked tea leaves cannot be called a tax on land. We are unable to appreciate the distinction sought to be made. Generally speaking, unless the produce of the land, whether it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9] 74 STC 447 (SC); (1989) 3 SCC 211 was bad on account of levy being related to despatches and, therefore, the tax impinged upon article 301 of the Constitution but we find it difficult to agree that because of the exemption provision contained in the enactment, the character of levy changes from levy on land to something else. The main holding in Buxa Dooars [1989] 74 STC 447 (SC); (1989) 3 SCC 211 is that levy impugned therein violates article 301. The argument about entry 49 of List II was referred to only for the purpose of saying that the levy on despatches of the tea cannot be related to the said entry. The provision for exemption contained in the impugned enactment, therefore, can certainly not be treated as a ground or reason for holding the said levy to be a levy not on land but on something else. There is no principle nor any authority in support of the said proposition. Yet another contention by Dr. Pal is that inasmuch as the impugned enactment makes the owner liable to pay cess and the owner is defined (by Explanation II) to mean, the transferee in possession in case of lease, mortgage or other transfer of possession, the levy cannot be said to be upon the land. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court to interpret an enactment. It is equally the function and power of the judiciary to say to which entry does an enactment relate. The opinion of the Government in this behalf is but an opinion and no more. Yet another argument put forward on behalf of the petitioners is that the quality of tea produced in one tea estate may differ from the quality of tea produced in another tea estate. Prescribing a uniform method of levy on all tea estates, without regard to the quality of tea produced, it is submitted, is discriminatory. It is not possible to agree. It would be sufficient to refer to the judgment of Hidayatullah, C.J., in Twyford Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala AIR 1970 SC 1133 where a similar argument was rejected in the following words: ".......The burden is on a person complaining of discrimination. The burden is proving not possible 'inequality' but hostile 'unequal' treatment. This is more so when uniform taxes are levied. It is not proved to us how the different plantations can be said to be 'hostilely or unequally' treated. A uniform wheel tax on cars does not take into account the value of the car, the mileage it runs, or in the case of taxis, the profits it makes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and levy of duty of excise on tea produced in India". Section 2 contains the declaration within the meaning of entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It is thus evident that the Act is relatable not only to entry 52 of List I but also to entry 14 of List I. Entry 14 reads: "14. Entering into treaties and agreements with foreign countries and implementing of treaties, agreements and conventions with foreign countries." It is for this reason that not only the tea industry but also the cultivation of tea has been taken under the control of Parliament, which probably could not have been done by a mere declaration under entry 52 of List I. Section 3 defines certain expressions occurring in the Act. The definition of "tea" in clause (n) has already been set out by us hereinabove. Chapter II containing sections 4 to 11 pertains to the constitution of the Tea Board, its composition, its functions and its dissolution. Sub-section (1) of section 10 sets out the functions of the Board. It says, "it shall be the duty of the Board to promote, by such measures as it thinks fit, the development under the control of the Central Government of the tea industry". Sub-se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here it takes over the management of a tea undertaking/tea unit under section 16D or section 16E, as the case may be. So does section 16G. The other provisions in this chapter are ancillary and supplemental to the power to ensure the production of tea at a particular level. Chapter IV containing sections 17 to 24 provide for control of the Tea Board/Central Government over the export of tea and tea seed. Chapter V contains sections 25 to 29 and they provide for finance, accounts and audit. Since section 25 is strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to set out the section in full: "25(1) There shall be levied and collected as a cess for the purposes of this Act a duty of excise on all tea produced in India at such rate not exceeding fifty paise per kilogram as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix: Provided that different rates may be fixed for different varieties or grades of tea having regard to the location of, and the climatic conditions prevailing in the tea estates or gardens producing such varieties or grades of tea and any other circumstances applicable to such production. (2) The duty of excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from the 15th day of August, 1986, the rate of cess as specified in column (2) of the Table below on the variety/grade of teas specified in column (1) of the said Table. TABLE Variety/grade of tea Rate of cess (1) (2) * All teas except those produced in the areas specified under column (1) of serial number 2. Paise fifteen per kilogram * All teas produced in he Sadar sub-division and Kurseong sub-division excluding the areas in the jurisdiction list Nos. 31, 29, 33, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 comprising Subtiguri sub-division of New Chumta tea estate, Smilbarie and Marionbarie; tea estates of Kurseong police station in Kurseong sub-division of the district of Darjeeling in the State of West Bengal. Paise eight per kilogram." It is true that "tea" as defined in section 3(n) means the tea plant and in that sense, it may also include tea leaves. For that reason it may probably be open to the Parliament to levy a duty of excise, by way of cess, on tea leaves. But a perusal of the aforesaid notification makes it appear that the levy of duty of excise/cess is really on tea, as commercially known. We need not, however, express any opinion on the scope of section 25 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, therefore, outside the competence of the State Legislature. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Central Excise Tariff Act levies a duty upon the tea as well. This contention is again premised upon the assumption that the impugned levy is a levy upon the produce of the tea estate and not upon the land comprised in a tea estate. Since we have already held that in pith and substance the impugned levy is a levy of tax on land and that the produce of the land is merely brought in for the purpose of quantifying the tax, i.e., as a measure, the said argument becomes out of place and unsustainable. Sri Ashok Desai submitted that by virtue of the declaration made by Parliament in section 2 of the Tea Act, as contemplated by entry 52 of List I, the State Legislature is denuded of the power to levy any tax on tea. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Baijnath Kadia v. State of Bihar (1969) 3 SCC 838. This argument again proceeds on the assumption that the impugned cess is a tax upon the tea or tea industry and not a tax upon the land, which assumption we have rejected hereinbefore. As pointed out repeatedly in the several decisions referred to earlier in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
