WEALTH TAX OFFICER, CALICUT versus C. K. MAMMED KAYI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.RS. T.M. POCKER & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 358 · Decided: 07-04-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
358 
WEALTH TAX OFFICER, CALICUT 
v. 
C. K. MAMMED KA YI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS 
L.RS. T.M. POCKER & ORS. 
April 7, 1981 
[V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND E.S. VENKATARAMJAH, JJ.) 
Wealth Tax Act, 1957-Section 3-"lndividual"-Whether includes Mapi/la 
-'! 
Marumakkathayam Tarawad (Muslim undivided family) governed by Marumak-
ukathayam Act. 
The assessee who was the 
Karnavan of Mapilla Marumakkathayam 
Tarawad registered as impartible within the meaning of section 20(1) of the 
Mapilla Marumakkathayam Act, 1939 was assessed to wealth tax on the net 
wealth of his Tarawad in the capacity of an individual under section 3 oft he 
Wealth Tax Act. 
The assessee's challenge as to the constitutional validity of section 3 as 
being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution was rejected by the High Court. 
The High Court, however, held by majority, that non-Hindu Undivided Families 
like Mapilla Marumakkathayam Tarawads were altogether outside the purview 
of the charging section of the Act. The assessment was, therefore, quashed. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that 
the expression "individual" in section 3 took in a body or group of individuals 
like Mapilla Marumakkathayam Tarawad for being assessed to wealth tax and 
that long legislative practice obtaining in the taxing scheme Mapilla Maru-
makkathayam Tarawads have always been treated and assessed in the status of 
''individual". 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : J. 
The term "individual" in section 3 includes a group of indi-
viduals like [Mapilla Marumakkathayam Tarawad. The term "individual" does 
not mean only a human being but is wide enough to include a group of persons 
forming a natural unit. (365 E] 
2. 
The canon of construction applicable to Entries in the Legislative 
Lists of the Constitution would be different from the canon of construction 
applicable to terms used in a taxing statute. While the object of an entry in the 
Legislative Lists is to demarcate a wide field by the use of compendious words 
the rule of construction applicable to a taxing statute must ensure _that the 
)-
WEALTH TAX OFFICER V. C.K.M. KAYI 
359 
subject is not to be taxed unless the language of the statute clearly imposes the 
A 
obligation. [364 B-C] 
Russell v. Scott, [1948] A.C. 422, referred to. 
3. The general scheme of the Wealth Tax Act is to assess to tax all 
persons who happen to possess wealth beyond the statutory limit and since the 
Act imposes a general tax on the entire wealth of the community the presump-
tion would be of equality of incidence rather than exemption of a few. Secondly, 
the term "individual'' can be read in plural and so read would include a body 
or group of individuals like Mapilla Tarawad. Thirdly t.he two terms 'individual' 
and 'Hindu Undivided Family' cannot b3 said to have been used in anti-thesis 
with each other. Section 3, the charging section, is merely concerned with 
specifying different assessable units for the purposes of assessment of wealth and 
imposition of the levy. 
[364 E-F] 
4. It is well settled that the legislature can select persons, properties, 
transactions and objects for the imposition of a tax and for that purpose classify 
as many different assessing units as it could reasonably think necessary. This is 
how the three assessable units have come to be specified in that section. [364 G] 
B 
c 
5. Specific mention of Hindu Undivided Family in section 3 does not 
D 
result in the exclusion of a group of individuals who only form a unit by reason 
of their birth like a Mapilla Marumakkathayam Tara wad from the operation of 
the scheme. [365 A] 
6. The argument that because ol the references to wife, daughter and child 
of an individual in section 4 the term "individual" in section 3 should be cons-
trued as referable to a single human being is without force. Similarly, absence 
of provisions similar to those applicable to Hindu Undivided Family for assessing 
groups of individuals who form non-Hindu Undivided Families cannot affect or 
control the charging section. [365 D-E] 
7. The legislative practice in the country in the taxing scheme had always 
been to treat and assess Mapilla Marumakkathayam Tarawad as an "individual". 
E 
[365 F] 
F 
V. Venugopala Ravi Varma Rajah v. Union of India and Another, 74 I.T.R. 
49 referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1543 of 
1971. 
G 
,,,_, 
Appeal by certificate from the Judgment and Order dated 
28.10.1965 of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.