Raghubar Dayal, J. - (1.) These are three petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution by the Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd., Kottayam and one of its directors and members praying for a declaration that the Agricultural Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act IX of 1961), hereinafter called the Amendment Act, enacted by the Kerala State Legislature, is null and void and that the State's power to tax income from tea to agricultural income-tax is limited to taking 60% of the income computed for the purpose of the Indian Incometax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Income-tax Act) as if it were income derived from business and for the issue of appropriate order to the respondents viz, the State of' Kerala, the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Kottayam, and Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Quilon, restraining them, their agents and servants from enforcing or acting upon the provisions of the aforesaid Amendment Act against the petitioner company.
(2.) The Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd., Kottayam, Petitioner No. 1, hereinafter called the petitioner, are the owners and managers of the Karimtharuvi and the Penshurst Tea Estates situate at Peermade in Kerala State. The Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (originally the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act XXII of 1950 amended as the Agricultural Income-tax Act 1950 by Act VII of 1957 of the Kerala Legislature), hereinafter called the Agricultural Income-tax Act, has been in force in the State of Kerala during the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 for which the accounting years of the petitioner were 1957, 1958, 1959 ending on December 31 of each year. The petitioner was assessed to agricultural income-tax under the provisions of the Agricultural Income-tax Act during those years. The grievance of the petitioner is that in commuting the taxable income in the accounting years for the purpose of assessment of tax under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, the assessing authority did not allow deduction of the expenses incurred by it in the upkeep and maintenance of immature tea plants from which no agricultural income had been derived during those years, though such expenses were deducted by the Income-tax Department in connection with the assessment of income-tax with respect to the non-agricultural portion of the income from the petitioner's tea estate in those years. The petitioner filed appeals against the three assessment orders dated August 12, 1960 for assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and dated October 11, 1960 for assessment year 1960-61 before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Quilon. Those appeals are still pending.
(3.) On March 30, 1961, the Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1961, received the assent of the Governor of the State of Kerala. Sub-section (2) of S. 1 provides that this Act would be deemed to have come into force with effect on and from April 1,1951. Section 2 provides for the addition of Explanation 2 to S. 5 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. This Explanation reads: 'Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to entitle a person deriving agricultural income to deduction of any expenditure laid out or expended for the cultivation, upkeep or maintenance of immature plants from which no agricultural income has been derived during the previous year." The petitioners challenged the validity of the Amendment Act stating that it was not within the competence of the State Legislature and that its provisions contravened the provisions of Arts. 14,19(1) (f) and (g) and 31 of the Constitution. At the hearing, however, the contentions about the Act contravening Arts. 19(1) (f) and (g) and Art. 31 were not raised. The main contention raised at the hearing is that the legislature of the State of Kerala cannot enact such a provision which would make agricultural income under it different from agricultural income as defined in the enactments relating to the Income-tax Act and that the impugned Explanation 2 to S. 5, if applicable to the income from tea plantations, would make the income from such plantations, for the purpose of the agricultural Income-tax Act. higher than what it would be if computed in accordance with the definition in the Income-tax enactments. The contention is well-founded.;