9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry through which this litigation has passed may briefly be indicated in order to appreciate how the aforesaid question arises for our determination. At the relevant time the deceased respondent was the karnavan of a Mappilla Marumakkathayam tarwad registered as impartible within the meaning of s. 20(1) of the Mapilla Marumakkathayam Act (Madras Act 17 of 1939). He was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1957-58 on the net wealth of his tarwad considered as an individual under s. 3 of the W.T. Act, 1957 and on completion of the assessment a demand notice, dated July 16, 1958, was served on him for payment. On September 10, 1958 he filed a writ petition being 0. P. No. 674 of 1958 seeking to quash the said assessment and the demand notice on the ground of unconstitutionality of the W.T. Act, No. 27 of 1957 (hereinafter called " the Act "). Four other writ petitions were also filed by the karnavans of HUFs of Malabar and Cochin governed by the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, No. 22 of 1923, challenging the constitutionality of the Act. Since common questions of law arose for determination, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions by a common judgment. The constitutionality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenge and held that s. 3 was not violative of art. 14, but each one did so for different reasons and in that process the majority reached the conclusion that non HUFs like Mapilla Marumakkathayam tarwads, were altogether outside the purview of the charging s. 3 and hence the assessment made and the demand notice served on the deceased, respondent, deserved to be quashed justice Velu Pillai took the view that the legislative entries in a Constitution were to be widely and liberally construed but not the provisions of a taxing statute, that though the term " individuals " in entry 86 of List would be comprehensive enough to include a body or group of individuals like HUFS, similar construction of the expression " individual " in s. 3 of the W.T. Act so as to include non-HUFs like Mapilla Marumakkathayam tarwads was not warranted, that the term " individual " in s. 3 of the Act occurred in antithesis with the term " Hindu undivided family " and if all undivided families were included in the term " individual " there was no necessity to mention HUF as a distinct taxing unit. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that non-HUFs were not covered by the term " individual " and were, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er art. 14 and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. However, in accordance with the view of the majority that Mapilla Marumakkathayam tarwads were outside the purview of s. 3 of the Act, the writ petition was allowed and the assessment made and demand notice served on the deceased respondent were quashed. In other words, though all the learned judges repelled the challenge to the charging section based on art. 14 of the Constitution, the majority reached that conclusion by holding that Mapilla Marumakkathayam tarwads were outside the purview of s. 3 of the Act. It is this latter view which is being challenged before us by the department in this appeal. Counsel for the revenue urged two contentions in support of the appeal. In the first place, he supported the construction placed by Krishnamoorthy Iyer J., on the expression " individual " in s. 3 of the Act that it took in a body or group of individuals like a Mapilla Marumakkathayam tarwad for being assessed to wealth-tax. Secondly, he urged that such construction was in accord with the long legislative practice obtaining in the taxing scheme in the country under which Mapilla Marumakkathayam tarwads have always been tre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry 86 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution takes within its ambit, an HUF, it would not automatically follow that the term " individual " occurring in s. 3 of the W.T. Act, 1957, would include a non-HUF like Mapilla Marumakkathayam, tarwad, but the question will have to be reconsidered in the light of the scheme of the W.T. Act itself. The enactment is intended to provide for the levy of wealth-tax; the general scheme thereof is to assess all persons who happen to possess or earn wealth beyond a particular limit fixed by the statute to wealth-tax and since the Act imposes a general tax on the entire wealth of the community the presumption would be of equality of incidence rather than exemption of few. Secondly, the term " individual " under s. 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, can be read in plural and as such would include a body or group of individuals like a Mapilla tarwad. Thirdly, there is no warrant for suggesting that the two terms " individual " and " Hindu undivided family " have been used in antithesis with each other, for, s. 3 being the charging provision, is merely concerned with specifying different assessable units for purposes of assessment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for determination was whether s. 3 of that Act was violative of art. 14 of the Constitution because an HUF (specifically mentioned as a distinct assessing unit) governed by the Marumakkathayam law had to pay tax at a higher rate by reason of the amalgamation of the expenditure of all the members of the family whereas a Mapilla undivided family was required to pay tax at a lower rate since the members of such family governed by the Marumakkathayam law were liable to be taxed as individuals under the section and this court answered the question in the negative. While doing so this court pointed out how Parliament had been accustomed in enacting tax laws to make a distinction between an HUF consisting of Hindus and undivided families of Mapillas and how for purposes of taxing statutes Mapilla tarwads have always been regarded as individuals. The relevant observations in this behalf run as follows (pp. 56, 57): " Under the taxing Acts the scheme of treating a Hindu undivided family as a distinct taxable entity has been adopted for a long time, e.g., the Indian Income-tax Act, 1869 (IX of 1869), the Indian Income-tax Act, 1870 (IX of 1870), the Indian Income-tax Act, 1871 (XII of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
