TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutes have to be dealt with on a different plank with due deference to the legislative intent. Much latitude is allowed to the State for classification upon a reasonable basis, and what is reasonable is a question of practical details and variety of factors which the Court would be reluctant and ill-equipped to investigate. It is in the aforesaid context of a taxing statute that the principles of Article 14 of Constitution of India are sought to be applied to claim relief by the writ petitioner, while, in our view, the two categories are clearly different and distinguishable and cannot be treated at parity. The mere fact that there is an element of drama or acting both in case of theatre and in case of films does not mean that the two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its that his job involves skills to display different kinds of emotions, dialogue delivery skills and acting characters specified by film Director. These skills are stated to be not different from an actor who performs with similar skills in theatre or drama. 2. In a nutshell, the plea is that the impugned notification is arbitrary and discriminatory as it extends only to performing artistes in theatre and drama and not artistes in films. The submission is that there is no reasonable basis behind such a classification. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is pleaded that the difference is based on the valid differentia between two categories (i) film artistes and (ii) native artistes and culture in theatre form. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible differentia. 5. We may add that the petition and the counter affidavit seek to refer to a number of pronouncements broadly on the same parameters. Suffice to say that the principles are well established and matters of tax legislation are to be dealt with in a different context. 6. In State of U.P. v. Kamla Palace reported in (2000)1 SCC 557, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in paragraph-11 with reference to the observation made by Frankfurter, J. in Morey v. Dound observed in the following terms: 11.......... In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to legislative judgment. The legislature after all has the affirmative responsibility. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly, there is a rider operating on this wide power to tax and even discriminate in taxation that the classification thus chosen must be reasonable. The extent of reasonability of any taxation statute lies in its efficiency to achieve the object sought to be achieved by the statute. Thus, the classification must bear a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. (See Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala; East India Tobacco Co. v. State of A.P.; N.Venugopala Ravi Varma Rajah v. A.B.Shanthi and Associated Cement Companies Ltd., v. Govt. of A.P). 9. The aforesaid Judgments clearly establish, in our view, that taxation statutes have to be dealt with on a different plank with due deference to the legislative intent. Much latitude is allowed to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
