Cil Ngo''s Association (Regd.), Bangalore and Others vs Union of India and Others

Writ petitions by the Union/Employees'' Association of the employees employed in South Region Military Engineering Services and also representing the MES Clerical Cadre and Group ''D'' employees. The Union/Association of such employees seeks to espouse the cause of the employees, its members, for the purpose of getting over their tax liability under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 (for short, ''the Act'').

The effort on the part of the petitioners to get over this liability is by putting forth two contentions; one is that such employees form part of the armed services governed by the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 or Navy Act, 1957 or Air Force Act, 1950, as the case may be, and therefore the exemption granted in favour of the combatant members of these forces in terms of exemption notification dated 31-3-2001, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-U to W.P. No. 47151 of 2002, the employees whose cause is espoused by the petitioner-Union/Association who are all persons exempted from levy of professional tax on the strength of this notification shall be extended to the members of the petitioner-association/unions also. The second and alternative contention is that if such employees are construed as not members of the combatant members of the armed forces, then, the very validity of the notification is questioned on the premise that the notification makes an invidious classification as between such employees who are termed as combatant members of the armed forces who are entitled to the exemption from levy of professional tax and persons like the members of the petitioner-association, who are being asked to pay the tax and therefore the notification is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, etc.

Considerable reliance is placed on the following rulings of the Supreme Court viz.:

Ous Kutilingal Achudan Nair v Union of India and Others, AIR 1976 SC 1119;

Gopal Upadhyaya and Others v Union of India and Others, AIR 1987 SC 413;

R. Viswan and Others v Union of India and Others, AIR 1983 SC 658;

B.S. Raut and Others v State of Maharashtra, 1991 Lab. I.C. 891 (Bom.) (DB), to urge that the members of the petitioner/union should be treated as part of the armed force and in fact as part of the combatant members of the armed forces for the purposes of claiming the benefit of the notification dated 31-3-2001.

Insofar as such claim to admit members of the petitioner-association the benefit of exemption is concerned, even in terms of the order dated 12-4-2002, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-T to W.P. No. 47151 of 2002, it has been held that such of those employees in whose favour a certificate is issued by the employer indicating that such employees are governed by the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 or Navy Act, 1957 or Air Force Act, 1950, for a particular period, they could claim the benefit of notification dated 30-4-1992 granting such exemption from payment of professional tax. However, there is a change in this notification and on and after 1-4-2001 in terms of the notification dated 31-3-2001, such exemption is confined only to combatant members of the armed forces and therefore the petitioners are aggrieved by this notification.

Insofar as the challenge to this notification on the ground of discrimination is concerned, it is not doubt true that the notification makes a classification and while granting exemption from levy of professional tax to that part of the employees who are known as combatant members of the armed forces, it is not extended to non-combatant members of the armed forces. This is a classification which makes a distinction between combatant members of the armed forces and non-combatant members of the armed forces. It is such classification, which is sought to be urged as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The respondent had been put on notice and the learned Government Pleader is representing the 6th respondent-State of Karnataka and the 7th respondent-Commissioner of Professional Taxes. Statement of objections have also been filed. Validity of the impugned notification is stoutly defended and the learned Government Pleader has also placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M.E.S. Employees Union v Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2002)126 STC 523 (AP), wherein, the Division Bench has upheld a similar notification issued under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987.

In the first instance, an exemption is not a matter of right. It is for the State to grant exemption to such class of persons whom it deems fit.

Insofar as making a distinction between the combatant employees for the purpose of extending the benefit of exemption and non-combatant employees for not extending such a benefit is concerned, it is undoubtedly an intelligible classification and meant to extend or provide a benefit confined to a particular section of the employees viz., such employees of the armed forces who are actually involved in the field work etc. It is undoubtedly a definite and distinguishing feature as between the employees of the armed forces who are on the field and are participants in the action and those who remain in the offices and work at their desk or even who have been involved in any action but not in the war front. If it is the intention of the respondent-State to extend the benefit confined to such of employees who actually take part in the field action. No exception can be taken to such a classification as such group of combatant employees of the armed forces undisputedly form a class of their own.

Submission of Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, learned Government Pleader, is that the combatant employees are exposed to considerable risk and hazards vis-a-vis non-combatant employees and therefore the classification is quite valid and justified.

It is true also and at any rate I do not find any discrimination in making such a classification as between the combatant members of the armed forces and non-combatant members and the classification should be held to be valid classification particularly from the point of view of extending the benefit of exemption as is done under the notification of the year 2001 vide Annexure-U to W.P. No. 47151 of 2002. If the members of the petitioner-association are recognised as combatant members of the armed forces, they can certainly claim the benefit on producing such certificate as earlier in the case of members of the combatant members of the armed forces.

In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed, as I find no occasion for interference on the merits of the petition.

Rule discharged. No order as to costs.