# 82 7 V. VENUGOPALA RAVI VARMA RAJAH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

- **Citation:** [1969] 3 S.C.R. 827
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-02-26
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. RAMASWAMl, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/82-7-v-venugopala-ravi-varma-rajah-v-union-of-india-anr-4647
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Expenditure Tax Act
(29 of 1957), '· 3(1)-Applicable to Hindu
f1u11ilies governed hy Mafumakkattayam [.aw hut not to. Mappilla fatnilies
governed by the Marumakkattayam law-If violative of Ari. 14 Constitution of India, 1950.
The mcn1bcrs of a
Hindu
undivided
family
governed
by
the
Al11ru11iakkattaya111 law, while 'remaining joint, had entered into an agreement for separate enjoyment of certain properties of the family by different members as permitted by their customary law.
For the assessment
vear 1958-59 its karta, in the status of a Hindu undivided family, filed a
return under the Expenditure-tax Act. 1957, of the expenditure incurred
by him in respect of the property under his 'personal control and direct
enjoyment'.
l'hc Expenditure-tax Officer. added the expenditure incurred
by the other n1cmbers of the family in 'respect of properties set apart for
their use and enjoyment as the expenditure of the llindu undivided family
under s. 3(1).
On the question, \Vhether s. 3 is violative of Art. 14 because, a Hindu
undivided family governed by the Mc·runinkkattayani law has to pay the
tax at a higher rate by reason of -the unit of taxation under the section
being the Hindu undivided family there is an amalgamation of the ex~
penditurc of all the members of the family, whe'reas, a Mappilla family
may pay tax at a tower rate since the members of a Mappilla undivided
family governed by the MarunU1kkattayan1 law arc Jiable to be taxed as
'individuals' under the section,
HELD : The equal protection clause of the Constitution allows a large
play to legislative discretion in the matter of classification. The power to
cJac;sifv may be exercised so as to adjust the system of taxation in all
prope'r and reasonable ways : the Legislature may select persons, properties, transactions and objects, and apply different methods and even rates
of tax, if the Legislature does so reasonably and if the classification is
rational.
A taxing statute may contravene Art. 14 if it seeks to impose
on the sanie class of property,_ persons, transactions or occupations simi·
Iarly situate, an incidence of taxation which leads to obvious inequality.
but, a taxing statute is not exposed to attack on the ground of disc'rimina·
tion merely because different rates of taxation are prescribed for differe1tt
categories of persons, transactions. occupations or objects.
The courts
\\ill not strike down an Act as denying the equal protection of laws me'rely
because other objects ~ould have been, but are not, taxed by the Legislature. [832 H; 833 A-F]
·
Though the law applicable to Hindu undivided families govorned by
the MarumakkattayGm law and to the Mappilla tarwad in North Malabar
has the same characteristics in two respect"'. namely, (a) tracing descent
through females: and (b) community of interest Rnd unity of posc;ession
in respect of the family property, the laws applicable to them in other
respects differ widely. Initially a common system of law relating to family
property o'f the tarwad was applicable to Hindus and Mappillas governed
8 28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
by the Maru1nakkattuya1n law, but since the enactment of the Madras
Marumakkattayam Act (22 of 1933) and
other enactments governing
Hindus, and the Mappilla Marumakkattayam Act (17 of 1939) governing the Mappillas, there are few points of similarity in property matters
in the tarwads. The application of the Islamic laws of marriage and inheritance to the Mappillas has led to greater cleavage.
The community of
Mappillas governed by Marumakkattayam law is a small community, restricted only to the Northern area of Malabar district and is dwindling
because of the impact of the Muslim law of inhe'ritance applicable to
shares obtained on partition. Parliament has been accustomed t.o treating
a Hindu undivided family as a unit of taxation and to enacting tax laws
making a distinction between a Hindu undivided family consisting of
Hindus and undivided families of Mappillas.
The long course of l

## Text

A
c
D
E
F
G
H
82 7
V. VENUGOPALA RAVI VARMA RAJAH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
February 26, 1969
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMl AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J
Expenditure Tax Act
(29 of 1957), '· 3(1)-Applicable to Hindu
f1u11ilies governed hy Mafumakkattayam [.aw hut not to. Mappilla fatnilies
governed by the Marumakkattayam law-If violative of Ari. 14 Constitution of India, 1950.
The mcn1bcrs of a
Hindu
undivided
family
governed
by
the
Al11ru11iakkattaya111 law, while 'remaining joint, had entered into an agreement for separate enjoyment of certain properties of the family by different members as permitted by their customary law.
For the assessment
vear 1958-59 its karta, in the status of a Hindu undivided family, filed a
return under the Expenditure-tax Act. 1957, of the expenditure incurred
by him in respect of the property under his 'personal control and direct
enjoyment'.
l'hc Expenditure-tax Officer. added the expenditure incurred
by the other n1cmbers of the family in 'respect of properties set apart for
their use and enjoyment as the expenditure of the llindu undivided family
under s. 3(1).
On the question, \Vhether s. 3 is violative of Art. 14 because, a Hindu
undivided family governed by the Mc·runinkkattayani law has to pay the
tax at a higher rate by reason of -the unit of taxation under the section
being the Hindu undivided family there is an amalgamation of the ex~
penditurc of all the members of the family, whe'reas, a Mappilla family
may pay tax at a tower rate since the members of a Mappilla undivided
family governed by the MarunU1kkattayan1 law arc Jiable to be taxed as
'individuals' under the section,
HELD : The equal protection clause of the Constitution allows a large
play to legislative discretion in the matter of classification. The power to
cJac;sifv may be exercised so as to adjust the system of taxation in all
prope'r and reasonable ways : the Legislature may select persons, properties, transactions and objects, and apply different methods and even rates
of tax, if the Legislature does so reasonably and if the classification is
rational.
A taxing statute may contravene Art. 14 if it seeks to impose
on the sanie class of property,_ persons, transactions or occupations simi·
Iarly situate, an incidence of taxation which leads to obvious inequality.
but, a taxing statute is not exposed to attack on the ground of disc'rimina·
tion merely because different rates of taxation are prescribed for differe1tt
categories of persons, transactions. occupations or objects.
The courts
\\ill not strike down an Act as denying the equal protection of laws me'rely
because other objects ~ould have been, but are not, taxed by the Legislature. [832 H; 833 A-F]
·
Though the law applicable to Hindu undivided families govorned by
the MarumakkattayGm law and to the Mappilla tarwad in North Malabar
has the same characteristics in two respect"'. namely, (a) tracing descent
through females: and (b) community of interest Rnd unity of posc;ession
in respect of the family property, the laws applicable to them in other
respects differ widely. Initially a common system of law relating to family
property o'f the tarwad was applicable to Hindus and Mappillas governed
8 28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
by the Maru1nakkattuya1n law, but since the enactment of the Madras
Marumakkattayam Act (22 of 1933) and
other enactments governing
Hindus, and the Mappilla Marumakkattayam Act (17 of 1939) governing the Mappillas, there are few points of similarity in property matters
in the tarwads. The application of the Islamic laws of marriage and inheritance to the Mappillas has led to greater cleavage.
The community of
Mappillas governed by Marumakkattayam law is a small community, restricted only to the Northern area of Malabar district and is dwindling
because of the impact of the Muslim law of inhe'ritance applicable to
shares obtained on partition. Parliament has been accustomed t.o treating
a Hindu undivided family as a unit of taxation and to enacting tax laws
making a distinction between a Hindu undivided family consisting of
Hindus and undivided families of Mappillas.
The long course of legislative history in matters of taxing income. wealth, gifts, capital gains and
business profits indicates that the Legislature tegarded undivided Hindu
families as a class to which the legislation may appropriately be applied.
Even though the basic scheme of a Hindu undivided family governed by
lhe Mitakshara law is different from
that of a family
governed by the
Maru111akkattayam law. a Hindu undivided
family
governed
by
the
l'tlaru1nakkattaya1n law fails within he expression 'Hindu undivided family.
Therefore, Parliament. by making the Act applicable to Hindu families
and not to Mappilla 'families governed
by
the Marurnakkattayam law,
has not attempted any obvious inequaJity or made any discrimination
violative of Art. 14. [832 B-C, G-H; 834 E-0; 835 A-0]
Raja Jagamwth Baksh Si111<h v. State of U.P., [1963] 1 S.C.R. 250,
followed.
U.S. law refcr'rcd to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRJSDICTioN : Civil Appeals Nos. 2436
A
B
c
D
and 2437 of 1966.
E
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
November 5, 1965 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeals Nos.
9 and 44 of 1964.
M. C. Chag/a, C. K. Vishwa Nath Aiyar and R. Gopalakrish11a11, for the appellant (in both the appeals).
F
D. Narsaraju, T. A. Ramachandran, and B. D. Sharma, for the
respondents (in both the appeals).
The Judgment of the.Court was delivered by
Shah, J. Rajah Padmanabha Ravi Varma was the karta of
a Hindu undivided family governed by the
Marumakkattayam
G
law. On his death in 1961 the appellant-his brother-became
the karta of the family.
In 1909 the members of the family,
while remaining joint, had entered into an
arrangement for
separate enjoyment of certain properties of the family by different members.
For the assessment year 1958-59 Rajah Padmanabha filed in the status of a Hindu undivided family, a return
H
under the Expenditure-tax Act of the taxable expenditure incurred by him in respect of the property under his "personal control
and direct enjoyment". The Expenditure-tax Officer added thereto
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
VENUGOPAIA V. UNION (Shah, J,)
8 29
the expenditure incurred by the other members of the family i'1l
respect of properties set apart for their use and enjoyment. The
Expenditure-tax Officer also served a notice of assessment under
s. 15(2) calling for a return of expenditure by the Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1959-60.
The appellant thC1n 111nved petitions before the High Court
of Kerala under Art. 226 of the Constitution for writs quashing
the assessment and the 11·1tice of demand for the year 1958-59
and the notice calling for a return for the assessment year 195960 contend-ng, inter alia, that he was not liable to be assessed
to tax on expenditure incurred in respect of property not "under
his personal control and direct enjoyment".
A single Judge of
the High Court of Kerala upheld the contentiQn.
In appeal a
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the single
Judge.
The appellant
contc1ds
that the Jaw
which enables the
Expenditure-tax Ofliccr to Jssess tax on the expenditure of all
members of the Hincu ur 'ivided family governed by the Marumakkattayam law. discri•. iates, Q\n
the ground of religion,
between the Hindu undiv··led family and a Mappilla undivided
family governed by the M urumakkattayam law resident in North
Malabar.
Section 3 of the Expenditure-tax Act 29 of 1957 is the charging section : insofar as it is relevant it reads :
" (I) Subject to the other
provisions
contained
in this Act, there shall be charged for every financial
year, commencing on and from the first day of April,
1958, a tax (hereinafter referred to
as
expendituretax) at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule in
respect of the expenditure incurred by any individual
or H\ndu undivided family in the previous year :
Provided that
"
Under the charging section tax is imposed on individuals
and
Hindu undivided families.
An -undivided family which consists
of Hindus alone may be treated as a unit of assessment : an undivided family whose members are not Hindus will be assessed
to tax as an "individual".
Counsel for the appellant contends
that whereas a Hindu family governed by the Marumakkattayam
law is assessed to expenditure-tax on the total expenditure incurred by all the members of the undivided family, because the unit
ol taxation under s. 3 is the Hindu Ullldivided family, a Mappill~
undivided family governed by the Marumakkattayam law in
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
North Malabar is liable to be assessed to tax as an "individual",
and on that account at a lower rate.
Marumakkattayam law applied originally by usage to a section of the Hindus inhabiting the South-Western coastal region
in India. Some centuries ago a section of the Hindu inhabitants
of North Malabar were converted en masse to Is/am, but they
sti!J continued to remain 'governed by the Marumakkattayam law
especially in matters of property relations among members of the
family.
The law administered by the Courts to these communities is, subject to express statutory provisions, a body of customs
and usages which have received judicial recognition.
The Mitakslzara law of joint family is founded upon agnatic
relationship : the U;lldivided family is characterised by community
of interest and unity of possession among persons descended from
a common ancestor in the male line.
The principal incident of
Marumakkattayam law is that it is matriarchate : members of the
family constituting a Marumakkattayam tarwad are descemded
through a common ancestress in the female line with equal rights
in the property of the family.
Under the customary Marumak·
kattayam law no partition of the family estate may be made, but
items of the family property may by agreement be separately
enjoyed by the members. On death of the interest of a member
devolved by survivorship.
Management of the family property
remained in the hands of the eldest male member, and in the absense of a male member a female member. A tarwad may consist
of two or more branches known as thavazhies; each tavazhi or
branch consisting of one of the female members of the tarwad
and her children and all her descendants in the female line.
Every tarwad consisted of a mother a,nd her children-male and
female-living in commensality, with joint rights in property.
The District c.f Malabar formed part of the State of Madras
till October 31. 1956.
The customary Marumakkattayam law
applicable to Malabar was modified in certain respects from time
to time by the Madras Legislature e.g. the Malabar Marriage
Act 4 of 1896. the Malabar Wills Act 5 of 1898. But the law
relating to property relations between the members of the tarwad
remained in its customary fom1 till the fourth decade of this century.
Under the customary law partition of the property of the
family could not be claimed by a,n. individual member or even
by a thavazlzi. It was so laid down by a course of judicial
decisions for over 75 years, and this rule was accepted iis settled
Jaw ti!1 the Madras Legislature enacted the Madras Marumak·
kattayam Act, 22 of 1933 and the Mappilla Marumakkattayam
Act 17 of 1939. the former applying to Hindus and the latter
to Mappillas who are Muslims.
There were however significant
differences between the two Act~. Under Act 22 of 1933 only
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
VENUGOPALA v. UNION (Shah, J.)
8 31
a tarwad could claim partition ( s. 3 8) (by the Madras Marumakkattayam (AmendmMt) Act 26 of 1958 enacted by the Ker-dla
Legislature the right to claim partition was also granted to individual members); property obtained by partition was held with
incidents of tarwad property [s. 38 (2) ]; and the Karnavan was
not required to maintain an inventory of the property, but had
to mai.ntain a true and correct account of the income and
expenditure :if the tarwad.
By the Madras Act 17 of 1939 any
member o: a Mappilla tanvad could claim partition ( ss. I 3 &
14); succession to prope,·ty obtained by partition was governed
by Islamic law ( s. 18) ; the Karnavan was required to maintain
an inventory of family property (s. 3); any member of the family
could apply to the Court for an order directing the Karfl(lvan to
give inspection of accounts or inventory [s. 5(2)]; surplus income had to be invested by the Karna van ( s. 7) ; and the Kamavan could be removed by a suit ( s. 11).
These and other statutory modifications were applicable only
to the Malabar area which was originally part of the State of
Madras and not to the State of Travancore-Cochin as it existed
before the States R.eorganization Act, 1956. Ther.e were several
legislative measures in the States of Travancore and Cochin
before those States merged with the Indian Union, and in the
State of Travancore-Cochin after merger and in the State of
Kerala, making changes in the customary Marumakkattayam
law: these were the Cochin Makkathayam Thiyya Act 17
of
1115
(M.E.); Cochin Marumakkattayam Act
13 of 1095
(M.E.). Cochin Nair Act 13 of 1095 (M.E.) and Act 29 of
1113 (M.E.); Cochin Paliam Tarwad Act 8 of 1097
(M.E.);
Cochin Thiyya Act 8 of 1107
(M.E.); Travancore Nanjinad
Vellala Regulation 6 of 1101 (M.E.); Travancore Nayar Regulation I of 1088 (M.E.)
and II of 1100 (M.E.); Travaocore
Wills Act 6 of 1074 (M.E.). It is sufficient to observe that by
these statutes significant changes were made in the customary
laws governing the family and property relations
between the
members governed by the Marumakkattayam law.
The Hindu Succ.:ssion Act 30 of 1956 also made inroads
upon the customary law. Sectio.n 3 (h) defined the expression
"Marumakkattayam law", and by s. 7 it was pcovided that if a
Hindu to whom the Marumakkattayam or Nambudri law would
have applied, if the Hindu Succession Act had not been passed.
dies, his or her interest in the property of a tanvad, tavazhi or
il/om shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, not
according to the Marumakkatta,vam law or the Nambudri law,
but ·under the Hindu Succession Act. By s. 17 of the Act ss.8,
10, 15 and 23 apply to persons governed by the Marumakkattavam
law snbject to certain modifications.
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l 969] 3 S.C.R.
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 78 of 1956 and
the Hindu Marriage Act 23 of 1955 also apply to Hindus governed by the Marumakkattayam law and modify the law relating to
family relations.
Initially a common system of law relating to family property
of the tarwad was applicable 1.0 Hindus and Mapillas governed
by the Marumakkattayam law.
Since the enactment of Madras
Act 22 of 1933 and the other Acts governing the Hindus, and
Act 17 of 1939 governing the Mappillas, points of similarity even
in property relations in the tarwads have considerably narrowed.
Application of the Islamic laws of marriage and inheritance to
the Mappillas led to greater cleavage. If a member of a Mappilla Marumakkattayam family married a person not governed
by the Marumakkattayam Jaw, the property of the person governed by the Marumakkattayam law apparently devolved according
to that system of law, whereas the property of the person governed by the Islamic law devolved according to
Islamic rules of
succession.
The result was th?t whereas the interest of a Mappilla governed by the Marumakkattayam law devolved by
survivorship, his separate property desceinded by inheritance in
accordance with the Islamic law. Hindus governed by the Marumakkattayam law,. since the enactment of the Hindu Succession
Act remained members of the undivided family, but on death the
interest devolved by the rules prescribed by the Hindu Succession
Act.
In a Hindu tanvad governed by the Marumakkattayam Jaw
the descent is matriarclrate and all members male and female have
equal shares in the property of the tarwad. Though not a family
governed by the M itakshara law, it is still a Hindu undivided
family within the meaning of the Expenditure-tax Act. The property relations between members of a Mappilla Marumakkattayam tarwad governed by the matriarchate with equal shares for
males and females were in certain respects, already stated, different from the relations between members
of
a Hindu
joint
family governed by the Marumakkattayam law.
The community of Mappillas governed by the Marumakkattaya!!' law is, compared to the Hindus, a small community
restricted only to the northern area ~f the Mafabar District. It
is again a dwindling community because of the impact of the Jaw
of inheritance applicable to share obtained on partition.
Jt
is
in the light of these special characteristics that the plea of discrimination must be considered.
Equal protection clause of the Constitution does not enjoin
equal protection of the laws as
abstract propositions.
Laws
being the expression of legislative will intended to solve specific
A
B
c
.I.I
E
F
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
VENUGOPALA v. UNION (Shah, !. )
8 33
problems or to achieve _defini_te objectives by
Sj)t:C~c
re~edies,
absolute equality or uniformity of treatment is nnposs1ble of
achievement. Again tax laws are aimed at dealing with complex
problems of infinite variety necessitating_ adjustme~t of . several
disparate elements. The c;,::ourts accordmgly admit, subiect to
adherence to the fundamental principles of the doctrine of equality, a larger play to legislative _discretion in the ID:atter of classification.
The power to c!ass1iy may be exercised so as to
adjust the system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways :
the Legislature may select persons, properties, transactions and
objects, and apply different methods and even rates of tax, if the
Legislature does so reasonably.
Protection of the equality clause
does not predicate a mathematically precise or logically complete
or symmetrical classification : it is not a condition of the guarantee of equal protection that all transactions, properties, objects
or persons of the same genus must be affected by it or •none at
all. If the classification is rational, the Legislature is free to
choose objects of taxation, impose different rates, exempt classes
of property from taxation, subject different classes of property to
tax in different ways and adopt different modes of assessment. A
taxing statute may contravene Art. 14 of the Constitution if it
seeks to impose on the same clas, of property, persons, transactions or occupations similarly situate. incidence of taxation, which
leads to obvious inequality. A taxing statute is not, therefore,
exposed to attack on the ground of discrimination merely because
different rates of taxation are prescribed for different categories
of persons, transactions, occupations or objects.
It is for the Legislature to determine the objects on which tax
shall be levied, and the rates thereof.
The Courts will not
strike down an Act as denyijllg the equal
protection of Jaws
merely because other objects could have been, but are not, taxed
by the Legislature : Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another('). The same rule has been accepted by
the Courts in America.
Willis in his ConstitutiQ!lal Law of the United States has
stated at p. 587 :
"A state does not have to tax everything in order
to tax something. It is allowed to pick and choose districts, objects, persons, methods, and even
rates for
taxation if it does so reasonably."
As stated in Weaver's Constitutional Law Art. 275 at p. 405 :
"The Fourteenth Amendmemt was not designed to
prevent a state from establishing a system of taxation
or from effecting a change in its system in all proper
(I) [19631 I S.C.R. 220.
.834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1969] 3 S.C.R.
and reasonable ways, nor to require the states to adopt
an ironclad rule of equality to prevent the classification of property for purposes of taxation or the impositioo of different rates upon different classes."
Weaver again says at p. 397 :
"Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges
upon a class of pe.rsons, arbitrarily selected from
a
large number of persons, all of whom stand in the same
relation to the privilege granted and between whom and
the persons not so favoured no reasonable distinction
or substantial difference can be found
justifying the
inclusion o~ one and the exclusion of the other from
such privilege ...... A classification must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive and there must be a reasonable, natural and substantial distinction in the nature of
the class or classes upon which the Jaw operates.
In
respect to such distinction, a legislative body has a
wide discretiO\'l and an Act will not be held invalid
unless the classification is
clearly unreasonable and
arbitrary."
It is unnecessary to multiply citations.
The Parliament has declared for the purpose of the Expenditure-tax Act an undivided family of Hindus as a unit of taxation
and imposed tax at the rates prescribed. To fall within the description the unit must'be an undivided family of Hindus. Within
the expression "Hindu undivided family" will fall an undivided
family of Hindus governed by the Marumakkattayam law. Even
though the basic scheme of a Hindu undivided family governed
by the Mitakshara law and the Marwnakkattayam law is different in two important respects, l'iz. the descent is through females
and childrci.'l both males and females have equal rights to pro·
perty-these families are still Hindu
undivided families.
The
law applicable to Hi.ndu undivided
family
governed
by
the
Mammakkattayam Jaw. and to the Mappilla tanmd in
North
Malabar has the same cha:·acteristics in two principal rc>pects-
(a) descent is traced through fem1les: anJ (b) there is community of interest and unity of possession i.11 respect of the family
property. But the Jaws applicahle to those families in other re<-
pects widely differ.
The Mappilla families governed by
the Mmwnakkattayam
law reside in a small part of the country and fonn !lUmerically
a small community. The Parliament has again be~n accustomed
A
B
c
E
f
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
VENJJGOPALA V. UNION (Shah, J.)
8 35
in enact4ng tax laws to make a distinction between a Hindu
Undivided Family consisting of Hindus and undivided families
of Mappmas.
By the taxing Acts the Parliament could have
treated MappiJJa tarwads as units of taxation. But the mere
fact that the Jaw could have been extended to another class of
persons who have certain characteristics similar to a section of the
Hindus but have not been so included is not a ground for striking
down the Jaw. In treating a Hindu Undivided Family as a unit of
taxation under the Expenditure-tax Act and not a Non-Hindu Undivided Family the Parliament has not attempted an "obvious
inequality".
Under the taxing Acts the scheme of treating a Hindu Undivided Family has been adopted for a Jong time, e.g., the Indian
Income-tax Act IX of 1869, Indian Income-tax Act IX of 1870,
Indian Income-tax Act XII of 1871, Act VIII of 1872, Act JI
of 1886, Act Vll of 1918, Act XI of 1922. Act 43 of 1961 have
treated a Hindu Undivided Family as a distinct taxable entity.
Similarly under the Wealth-tax Act 27 of 1957 and the Gift-tax
Act 18 of 1958, the Hindu Undivided Family is made a unit of
taxation. Under the Business Profits Tax Act 21 of 1947 and the
Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 also the Hindu Undivided Family
was made " unit of taxation. For the purposes of these
Acts
Mappilla tarwads governed by the Marumakkattayam law have
been regarded as individuals.
This Jong course of legislative history in matters of taxing
income. wealth, gifts, capital gains and business profits ckarly
indicates that the legislature regarded
undivided families
of
Hindus as a class to whiCh the legislation may appropriately .be
applied. An intention to effectively administer the taxing Acts and
not to discriminate on the ground of religion may be attributed
to the Legislature.
The Parliament in the present case having made the Expenditure-tax Act applicable to Hindus governed by the law of the
joint family, but not including Mappilla families who are governed by the Mappilla Marumakkattayam Act has not made ailly discrimination and the charging section is not liable to be struck
<lown on the ground that the Mappilla family may have to pay
tax at a lower rate, whereas a Hindu Undivided Family, by
reason of the amalgamation of the expenditure of all the members of the family. may have to pay tax at a higher rate.
The appeal> fail and are dismissed with costs.
One hearing
f~e.
'
V.P.S.
A /ll'ea/s dismincd.
L 11 S·1p Cl/69--4