VASANT ABAJI MANDKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in this group of petitions are all legal practitioners two of them having enrolled as such practitioners after retirement from service. Under Section 3 of the Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1975 (hereafter referred to as 'The Act') read with entry 2 of the Schedule I thereof, the petitioners are liable to pay the profession tax upto Rs. 250 per annum. The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the above Schedule I of the Act.

(2.) THE main charging Section 3 of the Act reads as follows: (1) Subject to the provisions of article 276 of the Constitution of India and of this Act, there shall be levied and collected a tax on professions, trades, callings and employments for the benefit of the State. (2) Every person engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment and falling under one or the other of the classes mentioned in the second column of Schedule 1 shall be liable to pay to the State Government the tax at the rate mentioned against the class of such persons in the third column of the said Schedule: Provided that, the tax so payable in respect of any one person shall not exceed two hundred and fifty rupees in any year: Provided further that entry 20 in Schedule I shall apply only to such classes of persons as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time.

(3.) THE legal practitioners are thus firstly classified by reference to whether they practice within Corporation area as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act or beyond such areas. They are then classified by reference to their standing, i.e., years of practice completed by them, for exemption from the tax, or for fixing the rate at which the tax is payable by them. The rate of tax so fixed does not take into account their earnings from the profession or their paying capacity. It is well -known that actual earnings of a practitioner and his overall standing depends on variety of factors. Income of a few lawyers in Corporation areas can be far lower than those practising in non -Corporation areas. A few junior lawyers earn at the bar even far more than their seniors. With old age capacity to work diminishes though experience gained itself proves to be an asset. Many practitioners continue in the profession in the just hope of some chance though they do not depend on the income thereof, because, of their other sources of income. Some even find it convenient to manage their properties better by continuing in the profession than by leaving it.