9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue involved is purely legal, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated all the submissions made before the learned Single Judge but has laid more emphasis on three contentions. It is urged that the assessment of luxury tax on the basis of plinth area is illegal and that the cut off date of April 1, 1999 as fixed is arbitrary and that the classification of luxury buildings and non-luxury buildings is also arbitrary because there is no slab system and the same rate of tax is charged for all luxury buildings howsoever big they may be. S. 5A of the Act which is under challenge is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference: 5 A. Charge of luxury tax:- (1) Notwiths ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax under one Statute only. Different luxuries can be brought to tax under one and the same statute or under different enactments. So long as the legislature has the power to levy such a tax under Entry 62, it may exercise that power by levying the tax under the same Statute or under different Statutes. The argument that the Legislature is bound to levy luxury tax on all luxuries under one comprehensive legislation cannot be accepted. The Act was enacted in the year 1975 with a view to levy a non-recurring tax on buildings. This tax was levied under Entry 49 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule, which gives power to the State Legislature to levy taxes of lands and buildings. The Legislature in its wisdom inserted S. 5A in the Act by Act 23 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d luxury tax on residential buildings. No fault can be found with the action of the Legislature in this regard. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. It was then contended that the levy of luxury tax on the basis of plinth area is illegal. It was strenuously urged that the word luxury has not been defined in the Act and, therefore, the levy of luxury tax on the residential buildings having a plinth area of 278.7 square metres or more is clearly arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is true that the term luxury has not been defined in the Act but that doss not, in our opinion, invalidate the legislation. Whenever the Legislature enacts a Statute, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for another. The Legislature is the best judge of the needs of the people and if it thinks that the buildings with a plinth area of less than 278.7 square metres is a necessity for the common man, the classification is reasonable and cannot be described as irrational or arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this Court. The total estimated collection of revenue from the levy of luxury tax in the year of introduction was twenty lakhs as stated in the annual budget. The rate of tax is rupees two thousand per building. It, therefore, follows that the total number of buildings with a plinth area of 278.7 square metres or more expected to be completed in the year 1999 was only one thousand in the entire State. This clearly shows that the bui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing having a plinth area of less than 278.7 sq.metre are necessarily required for the common man as a shelter and, therefore, this is a reasonable classification for the purpose of levying luxury tax which cannot be faulted with. 8. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Legislature having levied a building tax under S. 5 of the Act could not levy another tax on the same building describing it as a luxury tax. This argument too, is without merit and cannot be accepted. The building tax is levied under Entry 49 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule whereas luxury tax is levied under Item 62 of that List. Under Entry 62 of the State List, tax can be levied on luxuries. To have a residential building with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination. It is argued that only residential buildings have been subjected to luxury tax and not the commercial buildings and, therefore, the levy is discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The argument is also without merit and has to be rejected. The residential buildings and the commercial buildings are distinct and separate in every respect and they do not constitute one class of buildings. Levy of luxury tax on the residential buildings cannot, therefore, attract the violation of Art. 14 merely because the commercial buildings have been left out. It was open to the legislature to tax the commercial buildings as well but if it has chosen not to do so, the levy on the residential buildings cannot be said to be discri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
