Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It has been pointed out that unaccounted money of Rs. 5,00,000 crores approximately is in circulation in this country. Various committees were appointed by the Government. After considering the reports and the overall economic picture, if the Parliament decided to enact law, it is not for the Court to sit in appeal over the said policy decision. It is true that some provisions of the scheme could be abused by human ingenuity, but that cannot be helped. Admittedly, unearthing of unaccounted money is a complex economic problem faced by this country since years. Even experts would not be in a position to find out an easy solution to this complex problem. There would be divergent opinions of experts with regard to tackling of this problem and cannot be easily solved even by experts. Hence, for solving this problem to some extent if the Parliament decided to enact the law, the Court cannot substitute its judgment in place of the legislative judgment in the field of economic regulations or in taxation matters. It is well-settled that the function of the Court is to see that lawful authority is not abused and with regard to legislation, the provisions are not against the Constitution. But, it would not be open to the Court to substitute its decision on economic policy matters. It was repeatedly pointed out during the course of arguments that dishonest tax-payers are given undue benefits and much more immunities by the present enactment. As against this, it has to be borne in mind that even at present the taxation laws are admittedly very stringent. Still, it is difficult for the authorities to take appropriate action against those persons who amass unaccounted wealth to a large extent. For this issue, it may be that someone can state that the Administrative Department which had to implement the Act is not taking appropriate actions; some may allege that the prevailing atmosphere in the society is such that persons are tempted to accumulate unaccounted money; some may say that the administrative set up is such that for an honest man it is difficult to get his work done without parting with accounted or unaccounted money; some may say that, uptil now, the taxation rates were so heavy that persons were not prepared to pay legitimate tax; and some may reiterate that greed in human nature is inherent and that it varies from person to person, but the difference is only of degrees. Whatever may be the reasons, at least it is a known fact that in the present day economy, there is parallel economy of unaccounted money. For this purpose, if the Parliament enacts a law by which even a dishonest tax-payer is induced to pay certain amount of tax, it cannot be said that the said legislative policy is palpably arbitrary and should be interfered with by the Court. Admittedly, Courts are not having necessary competence and expertise to adjudicate upon such economic and social issues. We are saying that, apart from this economic issue, it is also a social issue because of the prevailing moral standards in the society. Further, it has also been repeatedly stated that human ingenuity is so great that, when it comes to tax avoidance, it would be almost impossible to frame such legislation which cannot be abused, and a trial and error method is inherent in every such legislation which deals with unearthing of unaccounted wealth.

"The test could only be one of palpable arbitrariness applied in the context of the felt needs of the times and societal exigencies informed by experience."

28. Same is the position in the present case. It is difficult to find out the best solutions of unearthing black money. The scheme may be unjust, to some extent, to honest tax-payers, but, according to the Parliament, that is required for adjustment or compensating for further injustices to the society by parallel economy of unaccounted money.

29. Similarly, the Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Sri Ambika Mills Ltd. AIR 1974 SC 1300, wherein the Court observed :

"To recognise marked differences that exist in fact is living law; to disregard practical differences and concentrate on some abstract identities is lifeless logic."

Applying this test laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it is required to be recognised that there is parallel economy of unaccounted money. It is submitted by the petitioners and respondents that it is roughly estimated at Rs. 500,000 crores. In such a situation, if the Parliament arrives at a conclusion, considering the social exigencies, that such scheme is necessary, it would be difficult to hold that it is palpably an arbitrary enactment. It is true that dishonesty is given premium and honesty is discounted, but this is required to be recognised as it exists in the society. It would be lifeless logic to concentrate only upon abstract concept of inequity between honest and dishonest tax-payers. Between the two, inequity exists and could not be ignored in present social set up.