@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.@mdashLawyers who are socially conscious professionals have chosen to question the imposition of profession tax under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1992), more particularly, the classification 2(a) of the Schedule to the Notification published in the Government Gazette dated 15.06.1992, on the ground that the classification is arbitrary and has no nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved and thereby violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. Counsel fairly drew our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K.M. Vijayayn v. Union of India 1993 Writ L.R. 580, wherein the levy of profession tax on the legal practitioners has already been upheld. Counsel nevertheless contends that the point now put-forth has not been considered in that case and therefore he should be permitted to urge this ground. Once a classification has been held to be not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court will not normally permit a challenge on the same ground of lack of compliance with the requirement of Article 14. However since the matter has been referred to the Division Bench, we will consider the arguments addressed before us.
3. The relevant entry in the Schedule 2(a) of the Notification relating to the legal practitioners reads thus:
2(a) Legal Practitioners including solicitors and notaries where the standing in the profession is
(a) less than two years
(b) two years or more but less than five years,
(c) five years or more.
The minimum as also the maximum rate of tax which maximum is within that fixed in Article 276(2) of the Constitution, is set out in the Notification. For the first category it is the minimum of Rs. 50/- and maximum of Rs. 100/- and for the second, a minimum of Rs. 200/- and a maximum of Rs. 500/- , and for the third, a minimum of Rs. 750/- and a maximum of Rs. 1250/- . Counsel contends that this classification is irrational as the classification is not based upon earnings, but is based upon the number of years of practice. It is well known that the persons who have put in more number of years of practice do not always enjoy a high level of income. Counsel invited our attention to the Entry in S1. No. 1 in the Notification which refers to salary and wage earners whose monthly salaries or wages are classified ranging from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 15,000/- and above and which are divided into eight slabs and the tax is fixed on the graded scale depending upon the level of income.
4. The argument that the levy of profession tax must be based upon the extent of income is thoroughly misconceived. The Profession tax is, what it plainly conveys, a tax on the profession. It is not a tax on income. The Statute providing for imposition of profession tax is enacted by the State Legislature pursuant to its legislative powers under the Entry 60 of the II List of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution which reads: "Tax on professions, trades, callings and employments." Taxes on income is in an altogether different entry found in Entry 82 of List 1 of the 7th schedule which reads: "Tax on income other than agricultural income". Entry 46 in List II relates to tax on agricultural income.
5. The tax levied on profession is distinct and different from the tax levied on income. The State has no power to levy tax on income other than on agricultural income. The tax levied on a profession can be graded depending upon the number of years put in by the person in that profession. Such a classification can, by no means, be characterised as arbitrary or irrational. Though it would have been open to the Legislature to fix the maximum permissible amount provided for in Article 276(2) of the Constitution, as the tax payable by all members of profession, it has chosen to provide for graded levy making those with lesser number of years of experience in the profession liable for payment of smaller sum than those who have put in more years. Such a graded levy based on the number of years of practice is a perfectly rational way of imposing tax on profession.
6. It is well known that the earning power of a professional though dependant upon many variables, to a substantial extent is affected by the number of years of practice, although one must hasten to add that mere long years of practice does not guarantee a professional a higher income merely because of the number of years put in. Merit, ability, and to .some extent luck, play their part. However, in matters of levy of tax it is not possible for the Legislation to take every small detail into account. The classification, so long as it is reasonable, is perfectly constitutional.
7. Counsel also submitted that it would have been more rational to link the levy to the area of practice, rather than the number of years of practice. The area of practice is a matter of the person''s choice. All areas of practice are important. The value of the service rendered by professional, namely, the legal practitioners to his clients is dependent on a number of variables and it cannot be said that any one area of practice will always ensure a higher income than another area of practice.
8. Moreover, counsel do not always confine themselves to a single area of practice. The large majority of legal practitioners practise in more than one branch of law. We do not find anything objectionable in the Legislature providing for a graded imposition of tax, linking the same to number of years of practice. A person who has put in less than two years of practice is not likely to earn the same amount as a person who has put in many more years of practice. A person would not ordinarily stay in the profession for ten years or more unless he is reasonably confident of himself or herself and in earning a reasonably good sum of money. The number of years of practice, therefore, does afford a reasonable basis for the classification.
8. The writ petition is dismissed. WMP. No. 24257 of 1993 is dismissed.
