Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A perusal of this will show that so far as the annual value within the meaning of Section 2(a)(i) is concerned it means four times of the amount of annual dead rent or twice of the amount of royalty with regard to ore or mineral extracted. Under Section 5 of the Act the rate of tax can be at a rate not exceeding 50% of the annual value. By notification No.F. 6(FD)GR/IV/85 dated August 1, 1985 the State Government has specified the rate of tax payable by the land holders for the use of the land specified in Clause (i) of Section 2(a) of the State Act. In support of their submission that the tax is confiscatory reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for petitioners on K. T. Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala AIR 1961 SC 552 and more specifically to its para 10. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners contends that under Article 19(1)(f) a person was to acquire and hold and dispose of the property, but it was omitted by Section 2 of the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978. According to the non-petitioners the deletion of the aforesaid clause from Article 19(1) of the Constitution jsnq longer open to challenge on the ground that the same is confiscatory. He further contends that the State is the] owner of the land and therefore the State] cannot confiscate its own property.

It is clear, therefore, that apart from being discriminatory and imposing unreasonable restrictions on holding property, the Act is clearly confiscatory in character and effect."

In the aforesaid case of K.T. Moopil Nair (AIR 1961 SC 552) (supra) the Supreme Court held that a taxing statute is not wholly immune from attack on the ground that it infringes the equality clause in Article 14, though the courts are not concerned with the policy underlying a taxing statute or whether a particular tax could not have been imposed in a different way or in a way that the court might think more just and equitable. That case has no application to the present case because true purpose of the tax was not levy of the tax but to appropriate the proprietorship of'the land without payment of compensation and as such it was held to have been made by the State Legislature in colourable exercise of the powers. In the case in hand the tax on the land has been imposed by the State legislature which as already stated earlier was competent to levy. Moreover, being the owner of the land it can hardly be said that it could confiscate its own property. The Supreme Court in Raja Jagannath Baksha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1563) (supra) held that a taxing statute can be challenged on the ground that fundamental rights being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships dealt with Art, 19(1)(f)of the Constitution as stood then before its deletion by the 44th Amendment Act. It was held that the tax being on the land holding, it is fixed in the Might of the annual value of the landholding. The land-holding is taxed on the basis of its annual value and the Schedule cannot successfully be challenged as being inconsis-

In Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1985 Kant 186 it was held in para No. 10 that :
"Art. 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution that guaranteed right to acquire and hold property and the right to claim compensation for the property acquired for a public purpose have been deleted by the Constitution 44th Amendment Act that came into force on 1-8-1979. With the deletion of those Articles, these petitioners, even if they can invoke those Articles cannot sustain their challenge to the Acts. From this also the challenge of the petitioners based on Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution is liable to be rejected".