Case: Union Of India  Vs. M/S Nitdip Text. Processors (P)Ltd

to give incentives and lay down the rates of taxation, benefits or concessions. In the field of taxation if the test of Article 14 is satisfied by generality of provisions the courts would not substitute judicial wisdom for legislative wisdom. 43) In Aashirwad Films v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 624 , this Court has held: 14. It has been accepted without dispute that taxation laws must also pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been laid down in a large number of decisions of this Court that a taxation statute for the reasons of functional expediency and even otherwise, can pick and choose to tax some. Importantly, 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. Union of India, Asstt. Director of Inspection Investigation v. A.B. Shanthi and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P.) 44) In Jai Vijai Metal Udyog Private Limited, Industrial Estate, Varanasi v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, (2010) 6 SCC 705 , this Court held: 19. Now, coming to the second issue, it is trite that in view of the inherent complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements, a wider discretion is given to the Revenue for the purpose of taxation and ordinarily different interpretations of a particular tariff entry by different authorities as such cannot be assailed as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Nonetheless, in our opinion, two different interpretations of a particular entry by the same authority on same set of facts, cannot be immunised from the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution. It would be a case of operating law unequally, attracting Article 14 of the Constitution. 45) To sum up, Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the Legislature for the purpose of attaining specific ends. To satisfy the test of permissible classification, it must not be ?arbitrary, artificial or evasive? but must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Legislature. The taxation laws are no exception to the application of this principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, it is well settled that the Legislature enjoys very wide latitude in the matter of classification of objects, persons and things for the purpose of taxation in view of inherent complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements. The power of the Legislature to classify is of wide range and flexibility so that it can adjust its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways. Even so, large latitude is allowed to the State for classification upon a reasonable basis and what is reasonable is a question of practical details and a variety of factors which the Court will be reluctant and perhaps ill- equipped to investigate. It has been laid down in a large number of decisions of this Court that a taxation Statute, for the reasons of functional expediency and even otherwise, can pick and choose to tax some. A power to classify being extremely broad and based on diverse considerations of executive pragmatism, the Judicature cannot rush in where even the Legislature warily treads. All these operational restraints on judicial power must weigh more emphatically where the subject is taxation. Discrimination resulting from fortuitous circumstances arising out of particular situations, in which some of the tax payers find themselves, is not hit by Article 14 if the legislation, as such, is of general application and does not single them out for harsh treatment. Advantages or disadvantages to individual assesses are accidental and inevitable and are inherent in every taxing Statute as it has to draw a line somewhere and some cases necessarily fall on the other side of the line. The point is illustrated by two decisions of this Court. In Khandige Sham Bhat vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Kasaragod and Anr. (AIR 1963 SC 591 ). Travancore Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act was extended to Malabar area on November 01, 1956 after formation of the State of Kerala. Prior to that date, there was no agricultural income tax in that area. The challenge under Article 14 was that the income of the petitioner was from areca nut and pepper crops, which were harvested after November in every year while persons who grew certain other crops could harvest before November and thus escape the liability to pay tax. It was held that, that was only accidental and did not amount to violation of Article14. In Jain Bros. vs. Union of India (supra), Section 297(2)(g) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was challenged because under that Section proceedings completed prior to April, 1962 was to be dealt under the old Act and proceedings completed after the said date had to be dealt with under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of imposition of penalty. April 01, 1962 was the date of commencement of Income Tax Act, 1961. It was held that the crucial date for imposition of Penalty was the date of completion of assessment or the formation of satisfaction of authority that such act had been committed. It was also held that for the application and implementation of the new Act, it was necessary to fix a date and provide for continuation of pending proceedings. It was also held that the mere possibility that some officer might intentionally delay the disposal of a case could hardly be a ground for striking down the provision as discriminatory. 46) In view of the above discussion,

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In determining whether classification is reasonable, regard must be had to the purpose for which legislation is designed. As we have seen, while understanding the Scheme of the legislation, the legislation is based on a reasonable basis which is firstly, the amount of duties, cesses, interest, fine or penalty must have been determined as on 31.03.1998 but not paid as on the date of declaration and secondly, the date of issuance of Demand or Show Cause Notice on or before 31.03.1998, which is not disputed but the duties remain unpaid on the date of filing of declaration. Therefore, in our view, the Scheme 1998 does not violate the equal protection clause where there is an essential difference and a real basis for the classification which is made. The mere fact that the line dividing the classes is placed at one point rather than another will not impair the validity of the14 does not prohibit reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the Legislature for the purpose of attaining specific ends. To satisfy the test of permissible classification, it must not be ?arbitrary, artificial or evasive? but must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Legislature. The taxation laws are no exception to the application of this principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, it is well settled that the Legislature enjoys very wide latitude in the matter of classification of objects, persons and things for the purpose of taxation in view of inherent complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements. The power of the Legislature to classify is of wide range and flexibility so that it can adjust its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways. Even so, large latitude is allowed to the State for classification upon a reasonable basis and what is reasonable is a question of practical details and a variety of factors which the Court will be reluctant and perhaps ill- equipped to investigate. It has been laid down in a large number of decisions of this Court that a taxation Statute, for the reasons of functional expediency and even otherwise, can pick and choose to tax some. A power to classify being extremely broad and based on diverse considerations of executive pragmatism, the Judicature cannot rush in where even the Legislature warily treads. All these operational restraints on judicial power must weigh more emphatically where the subject is taxation. Discrimination resulting from fortuitous circumstances arising out of particular situations, in which some of the tax payers find themselves, is not hit by Article 14 if the legislation, as such, is of general application and does not single them out for harsh treatment. Advantages or disadvantages to individual assesses are accidental and inevitable and are inherent in every taxing Statute as it has to draw a line somewhere and some cases necessarily fall on the other side of the line. The point is illustrated by two decisions of this Court. In Khandige Sham Bhat vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Kasaragod and Anr. (AIR 1963 SC 591 ). Travancore Cochin Agricultural Income Tax Act was extended to Malabar area on November 01, 1956 after formation of the State of Kerala. Prior to that date, there was no agricultural income tax in that area. The challenge under Article 14 was that the income of the petitioner was from areca nut and pepper crops, which were harvested after November in every year while persons who grew certain other crops could harvest before November and thus escape the liability to pay tax. It was held that, that was only accidental and did not amount to violation of Article14. In Jain Bros. vs. Union of India (supra), Section 297(2)(g) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was challenged because under that Section proceedings completed prior to April, 1962 was to be dealt under the old Act and proceedings completed after the said date had to be dealt with under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of imposition of penalty. April 01, 1962 was the date of commencement of Income Tax Act, 1961. It was held that the crucial date for imposition of Penalty was the date of completion of assessment or the formation of satisfaction of authority that such act had been committed. It was also held that for the application and implementation of the new Act, it was necessary to fix a date and provide for continuation of pending proceedings. It was also held that the mere possibility that some officer might intentionally delay the disposal of a case could hardly be a ground for striking down the provision as discriminatory.