Apa. HMH CQURT OF CHHRTTEGARH AT B§L§$PUR @ B?m VE$£QN EENC§'§ €GRAM: HEWELE $HR1 RAJEEV QUWIQ, CJ. HON’BLE $HR§ $UNEL KUMAR SWHA J. MM WRW PET§?§0N N0. 2$4 Qf 29% Ashok Kumar Tejwani, @eu’tiane? PROP. M/s. Anand Trading CG. Gudakhu Lane, Ra}nandgaen VER$E§$ Resganoigmg 1 State of Chhattésgarh, Threugh 8eoretary Commercial Tax Department, D.K. Mam‘ralaya Bhawan, Raipur 2 Comm§ssibner of (6hhait§sgarh) (CG) Vanijyék Kar Bhawan, ProfeS$§on CM} Line, Ra§pur Tax, 3 Assistant Commissianer, PrefeS$ion Tax, Dmg (CG) ,—>;EW L u wk! KW§ER @R?§QLE 22$l22? G? TME QQMsTgmwem OF imggg Presemt: Shn‘ Neeiabh Dubey, Counge! forthe petitéoner‘ Shri Aéak Bakshi, Gavemmem Aévocate for the $tate! {gspondents aria“ w Mai-cm 2am; The fah‘owmg order of the Cam was passeé by EvEajaw @upm, CJ‘ Learneé gounsei for the 2) The pe raiiefs .' parties are hemd on admi$$i0n iit§one¥ has f§led iha‘s writ petiiion for the fcliawing T,H\\ / ‘74 That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased m issue suitame writ efders and directions £nc£uding writs in the nature of mandam us certiorari prohibitian etc. Quasming order dmeai 10iG4/2002 passed by the Assistant CemmiSsfoner of Profession Tax; Durg being annexure ‘P-1.’ as being mega! in-so~far as it seeks to recwer tax & penaky ,in excess (3f Rs.2,500/~ (Two theusand five hundred omy). '(7-2 Dec5ar§ng sectian 8(4) and 13 of ihe Professiona£ Tam Act, 1Q95 as being unconstétutiona! end liabfe m be struck eff‘ 7-3 Deciaring aitemativeiy that sections 8(4) and 13 of the Profeseionai Tax Act, 1995 shouid be read down to mean that penaities leviabie under the eaid secticns tegether with tax ieviable thereon cannot exceed Rs.2;500/- (Two Thousand nve hundred cniy}. 14 Any ether relief that the Hon’ble High Com may deem ht." 3)Petiticner Ae‘nok Kumar Trading Company, Rajnandgaon. The peti Trading Ccmpany is registered under the §9§5 ai regiefration NoRDN/PT/17/1762. The Commissioner; Professionaf Tax, Durg aesessed firm vide ercier dated 10.04%02 fer the period 01.04.19§8 31. .Q3.1 ege, wh ereby profes on *éhe pe’ziiionér’e firm end fer ncn~paym Wrihrn ihe preecnheo’ pence I I Tejwani is proprietor of IWS Anand honer‘s firm M/s Anand Protessionai Tax Act; Assierant the petitioner’s to eionei tax of Ra2y5001— wae eeeessed ent of the proteseicnai tax penaity of Rs.‘i,666/- was aieo , imgmgd u‘ der Secticm 13 of the Professional Tax Act, 1995 (far short, “me Act‘). 4) The petitioner has chalienged the consiitutional vaiidity of Section 8 (4} and Section 13 of the Act on the eole ground that the previsione coniained in ihese two sect'mns providing for impositien 0f eenalty in addition to maximum amount of professional tax of Rs.2,500!— is ultra vires to Artioie 276 of the Constitution of indie whioh has prescribed a oeiiing of Rs.2i500/—. 5) Shri Neeiaoh Dubey, teamed oouneei for the petitioner vehementiy argued that any ievy under the provisions of the Act; whether it ie in the form of tax, penalty or interest is subject to consoiidated oeiiing of Rs.2,500!— prescribed in Article 276 of the Constitution of india. Learned counsel further submitted that, eub—Section (4) of Section 8 providing for imposition of penalty on account of non—registration and Section 13 providing for imposition of oenaity on account of non—payment of tax, therefore, are ultra vireo to Artiole 276 of the Conetitution of lndia. 6) Section 8 and $ection 13 of the Act, constitutional vaiidity ~ whereof is under challenge in this writ petition read as follows : “Section 8 Registration :- (1) Every employer, other than any officer of the Central Government, Raiiways or the State Government, liable to pay tax under section 4 shall obtain a certificate of registration from the Profession Tax Assessing Authority in such manner and form as may be prescribed. {2) Every person liable to pay tax under this Act, other than a person earning (salary or wage} in respect of whom the tax is payable by the employer but including a l person who in additéon to earning a (salary or wage) he i$ aEso carrying oh a irade, profession or calling other than agriculmre er who is simultaneousiy in émpmyment 0f more than one employea shaH obtain a oemfioate of regigtration from the Profession Tax Aeseesing Au“moriiy in euch manner and form as may be prescribed. (3} Every employer or person required i0 obtain a certificate or registration under sub-Section (’1) or sub‘sec‘iion (2): shaiiwithin thirty days of his becoming iiebie to pay tax under this Act apply for the certificate of registration to the Profession Tax Assessing Authority in the prescribed form and that authority shalt, after such enquiry as it considers necessary, within sixty days of the receiot of appiioation, it the appiication is in order; grant the certificate of registration. (4) Where an empioyer or person iiabie to registration has wiifuiiy failed to appiy for such certificate within the time specified in sub-section (3), the Profession Assessing Authority may, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, impose penaity not exceeding rupees twenty for each day of delay subject to a maximum of rupees two thousand five hundred. (5% Where an empioyer or a person liable to registration has given faise information in any application submitted under this section, the Profession Tax Assessing Authority may after giving him a reasonabie opportunity of being heard impose a penaity not exceeding rupees five hundred.” Section-13 Penaity tor non—payment ot tax :~ if an employer or person fails Without reasonabie cause, to make payment of any amount of tax within the specified time or the date as specified in the notice of demand, the Profession Tax Assessing Authority may, after / K; @ giving him a masonabie opportunity of being heard, impose upon him a penalty equal to two percent per monih of the amount of tax due & subiect to a maximum oi two—third of the amount of tax dua.” 7 _ xx apparent that sub—Section (4) of Section 8 provides for imposition of penaity not exoeeding rupees twenty for each day of deiay subgeot to a maximum of Rs.2,500/—. Similariy, Section 13 provides for imposition of penaity equai to 2% per month of the amount of tax due eubiect to a maximum of 2/3” of the tax due for default in payment of amount of tax within the specified time or date as prescribed in the notice of demand without reasonabie cause. 8) Before examining the submissions advanced by learned counsei for the petitioner, it would be useful to re-produce Article 276 of the Conetituon of lndia. ti Fram the abave quoted Section 8 cf the Act, ii becomes “276. Taxes on professions, trades, ceilings and empioyments.— (t) Notwithstanding anything in article 246, no law of the Legislature of a State relating to taxes for the benefit of the State or of a municipality, district board, local board or other local authority therein in respect of professions, trades, callings or empioyments shall be invalid on the ground that it reiates to a tax on income. (2) The totai amount payable in respect of any one person to the State or to any one municipality, district board, locai board or other iocal authority in the State by way of taxes on professions; trades, caliings and empioyments shaii not exceed two thousand and five hundred rupees per annum: 2(***) ‘ ' G‘x (3) The power of the Legisiature of a State to make taws ae aforesaid with respect to taxes on professions, trades, caiiinge and empioyments shaii not be conetruect ae timiting tn any way the power of Parliament to make laws with respect to taxee on income accruing from or arising out of professions, trades, caiiinge and empmyments.” 9) True, the above quoted Amme 276 of the Constitution of lndia imposes a ceiling of Rs.2,500/- per annum as amount of tax payable tn ‘respeot of any person to the State or to any one municipality, district bcam‘, iocal beard or other iocai authority. 10) The Scheme under the Act provides for imposition of tax and penalty under different Sections. Section tt of the Act provides for assessment of the tax. Sub—Sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act provides for registration of the employer and other persons liable to pay tax under this Act, whereas subnSection (4) and sop-Section (5) of Section 8 provides for imposition of penalty 0n acccunt e? witfui faiiure to apply for registration and for giving faise information, reopectiveiy. Section i3 of Act provides for imposition of penalty for non-payment of tax within the specified time. 11) The cause of action or event which attracts tax and penalty under the Aot are Separate and different in their essential nature. As such, penaity imposabie under Section 8 (4) and Section 13 of the Act cannot be considered to be at par with the tax imposable are}? under the Act. The penalty, therefore, cannot be considered as tax subbu @\ 0.? addiiziona! tax for the purposes of Clause (2) of Articie 276 of the Constitution of india. 12) Admittedly, in the present case, a sum of Rs.2,560/— only has been imposed by the authorities on the petitioner’s firm as professionai tax which is weii within the ceiling prescribed in Artiste 276 of the Constitution of indie. i3} We, therefore, do not finoi any eubetance in the petitioner’s ohaiienge to the conetitutionai vaiidity of Section 8 (4) and Section i8 of the Ao’c, which provides for imposition of penaiiy in ado‘ition to professional tax of Rs.2,500/-. i4) The writ petition, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sdl- i, Sunil Kumar Sinha i, sdl- Judge Chief Justice