LexS.K. DUTTA, INCOME-TAX OFFICER & ORS. versus LAWRENCE SINGH INGTY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A.
S. K. DUITA, INCOME-TAX OFFICER & ORS.
B.
c
D.
E
F
G
H
v.
LAWRENCE SINGH INGTY
November 1, 1967
(K. N. WANCHOO, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI,
. G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
{ncome,-..x Act (11 of 1922), s. 4\3)(xxi) and
Income-tax
Act
(43 of 1961), s. 10(26)-Exemption from. tax-Denied to government
servantS-C-lf violative of Art. 14 oj Constitution.
BOtb under s. 4(3).(xxi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and s. 10(26)
of 11\t Income-tax Act, 1961. income of the members of a scheduled
tribe ihcluded in Art. 366(25) of the Constitution and residing in· any
area specified in Part A or Part B of the Table appended to Paragraph
20 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. excepting that of govern-
ment servants, •is exempt from income-b\X. The respondent was. a mem·
ber of such a scheduled tribe ;esiding in such an area, but, as he was a
government servant, he was assessed to income-tax. · He challenged the
validity of the assessments and the High Court quashed the as'"'"Smcnts
holding that the two sections. to . the extent they excluded government
setvants from the benefit of th!' ex~ption given thereunder, were dis-
criminatorv and therefore void.
'
In appeal to this Court.
HEID : The State has a wide discretion in selecting persons or
objects it will tax, but within the range of selection made by it for the
purpose of exemption, namely, among :members of cer:tain scheduled
tribes ·residing in specified areas, the law as stated in the two oections.
operates unequally and the inequality cannot be justified on the basis of
any valid classification. [168H; 1698-C)
·
(I") The classification of tribals into government servants and others
cannot be jiistified on the basis of administrative convenience viz.. that
it was easy to collect taxes from government servants, because. · · their
case does ·not stand on a different footing from that of the employees. in
statutory corporations or well-<:stablished tinm. U69F-OJ
(2) 1bcrc is no legislative practice or history treating government ·
servants as a separate class for purposes of income tax. Tiie reason for
making, in the past, persons in the service of the government of British
India serving outside British India subject to Indi.an income.tax. is not
I.bat 'their income was· treated in a manner different from that of· other
salaried. ofticers in those areas, but that the Indian Legislature .haif no
legislative competence to tax residents of those areas but had compe,
tence to tax the iiicome of person• in British Indian g0vernment service,
serving in those areas.
Further, the notificatiQn of 6th June 1890 under
which the inoome' earned by members of eertain scheduled tribes, other
than those Jn .. government setvice,. was exempt from income tax, and the
notification .of 21.st March 1922. under which income of certain indi-
g:Q.OUS bill men, other than those in government service, was exempt
from tai. arc not sufficient to prove a .well-established' legislative practico.
Those notifications were issued at a time when the power of ·the legisla-
ture to grant or withhold any exemption from tax was not subject to
~y constitutional limitation.
aassificatio'n based on past
legislative
166
St;PREMll COURT REPORTS
[1968] 2 S.C.R.
practice a.nd his'?ry does not mean that because in the past the legislalurc
A
was enaclmg arb11rary laws 11 could do so now. ( l 70A; 17 lD-F]
(J) The s~ial status and economic resources of a government ser-
vant are ~ot different from that of anothe_r holding a similar position in
a corporat.Jon or that of a succe~ful medical praccitioner, lawyer, archi-
tect etc .. Thcref.orc, merely ~allc;e a tribal becomes a government ser-
vant .h~ 1s not lifted out of his social cnvironntent and assimilated into
the forward scclions of society. [I 72A-BJ
B
I -t) The portions of the two sc."C"tioas struck doY.n are ~verable from
the rest of the provision• in which I hey appear. f I 72E·F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 809 of
1966.
Appea! by special leave from the judgment and order dall!d
c
February 13, 1965 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in
Civil Rule No. 127 of 1963.
Niren De, Solicitor-General, A. N. Kirpa/, S. P. Nayar for
R. N. Sachthey for the appcl!ants.
M. C. Setalvad and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent.
D. M. Sell, Advocate-General for the State of Nagaland, A. R.
Barthakur and R. Gopa/akrishnan, for the intervener.
The Judgment of the CoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.