Delhi HC refuses PIL to tax agricultural income, terms it 'misconceived'

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to impose taxes on agricultural income in Delhi. The court termed the petition "highly misconceived" and affirmed it cannot direct the government to create tax policies.

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the authorities to impose tax on agricultural income in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

A bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia declined to issue a mandamus directing the government to formulate a policy for taxing agricultural earnings in Delhi. During the hearing, the court termed the petition "highly misconceived" and refused to interfere in matters relating to tax policy.

Plea sought taxation to end fiscal inequality

The bench observed that the court could not direct the government to frame legislation or introduce a taxation regime through judicial orders. The plea had sought directions to the authorities to consider legislative and policy measures for taxation of high-income agricultural earnings in Delhi.

It argued that the continued exemption granted to agricultural income created fiscal inequality and resulted in arbitrary classification among taxpayers. According to the petitioner, while salaried employees, traders and other categories of taxpayers remain within the tax framework, certain high-income individuals allegedly continue to avail exemption under the category of agricultural income.

The petition relied upon Article 246 of the Constitution read with Entry 46 of the State List, contending that states have the legislative competence to levy tax on agricultural income. It also referred to Section 22(1)(a) of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, seeking consideration of appropriate legislative measures.

The plea further alleged that the absence of such a taxation framework in Delhi violated Articles 14, 38 and 265 of the Constitution and resulted in unequal treatment among taxpayers.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)