1972 (11) TMI 15 - HC - Wealth-tax

Wealth Tax Act 1957 - In these writ petitions the petitioners seek to quash the assessment orders made against them by the concerned Wealth-tax Officer - Whether the provision granting higher exemption limit for persons owning agricultural lands are discriminatory in nature held that it is not discriminatory

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to assessment orders based on the inclusion of agricultural lands in the definition of "asset" in the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. Attack on the discriminatory nature of the proviso to section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as amended by the Finance Act of 1969.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras addressed the challenge to the assessment orders made against the petitioners concerning the inclusion of agricultural lands in the definition of "asset" in the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The petitioners contended that Parliament lacked legislative competence to levy a tax on agricultural lands. However, the court rejected this contention, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon, which upheld the validity of the provision in the Finance Act, 1969, allowing the valuation of agricultural lands for wealth-tax purposes.

Moving on to the second issue, the petitioners argued that the proviso to section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act was discriminatory as it granted higher exemptions to assessees owning agricultural lands compared to those owning other assets, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court analyzed the legislative provisions under section 5(1)(iv) and 5(1)(iva) regarding exemptions for house properties and agricultural lands, respectively. The petitioners initially claimed that the higher exemption for agricultural lands was discriminatory but later abandoned this argument during the proceedings.

The court examined the contention that the proviso to section 5(1)(iva) was discriminatory by reducing the exemption limit for individuals owning both house properties and agricultural lands. The petitioners argued that the exemption for agricultural lands should be considered independently. However, the court held that the legislature had the discretion to provide limitations for exemptions across different categories of assets. The court found that the two-fold classification in granting exemptions based on ownership of house properties and agricultural lands had a rational nexus with the legislative intent of the Act and did not amount to arbitrariness or discrimination.

Additionally, the court distinguished a Supreme Court decision cited by the petitioners, emphasizing that the taxation measure in question did not operate unequally or violate Article 14. The court upheld the validity of the combined ceiling limit for exemptions in respect of house properties and agricultural lands set by the legislature. Consequently, the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders were dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.