ORDER A.K. Mathur, C.J.--1. All the batch of writ petitions mentioned in the annexed schedule (Not reproduced) involve common question of law and facts; therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. For convenient disposal of all these petitions, the facts giving in WP. No. 2424/95 are taken into consideration. 3. The petitioner-Association by this writ petition, has challenged the validity of sections 4 and 5 of the M.P. Vriti Kar Adhiniyam, 1995, and also the Schedule of the Adhiniyam. The petitioner has also prayed that the same may be declared as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and also Article 229, and also prayed that the order dated 12.6.1995 passed by the respondent No.2 may be quashed. 4. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are thus: The petitioner is a High Court of M.P. Employees' Association and the same is registered with its Registration No. 7701. The aims and objects of the petitioner-Association is to protect claims, interest of Officers and Staff/Employees of the Registry of the High Court and also to espouse the causes on their behalf for their betterment etc. The Madhya Pradesh Vriti Vyapar Aajivika Aur Sewayojan Kar Adhiniyam, 1966, was amended by the M.P. Act No. 20 of 1990, and was published in M.P. Rajpatra dated 21.9.1990 w.e.f. 1st April, 1990. The Schedule appended thereto' was also revised. This came for challenge before this Court in Misc. Petition No. 629/91. But, thereafter, a new Act came into force as Act No. 16/95, on 10.5.1995 which was published in M.P. Gazette (Extra ordinary) on 16.5.1995 and the said Act is known as 'M.P. Vriti Kar Adhiniyam, 1995', (hereinafter referred to as the ACT"). Therefore, now, the validity of this amended Act has been challenged by this petition. It has been pointed out that an employee serving in a village or township or a city has to pay equal professional tax on the sole basis of his salary. It has also been pointed out that the classification on the basis of population is irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the employee of less than five years service has to pay tax but a practitioner having less than five years practice has been exempted. It has also been pointed out that the classification on the basis of population is irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the employee of less than five years service has to pay tax but a practitioner having less than five years practice has been exempted. Therefore, it has been submitted that there is discrimination between the two categories. It is pointed out that certain deductions have been made permissible from the gross income of a person who practises a profession under section 5 of the Act, but same concessions are not being made available to the employees; therefore, they have been discriminated. It is also contended that section 4 of the Act is violative of Article 229 of the Constitution of India because under Article 229, service conditions of the employees of the High Court are governed by the rules framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court; therefore, this Act cannot lay down the condition for imposing this tax A challenge has also been made to the power of search and seizure. 5. A return has been filed by the respondents and the respondents have taken the position that the said Act has been enacted by the Legislature in exercise of power under: Entry 60 of IInd List of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution; therefore, the validity of the said Act cannot he challenged as Legislature is competent to enact the law under the Constitution. It is submitted that this Act has been enacted to levy tax on the persons in employment, professions and other categories of persons and annual income therefrom was estimated to be of Rs.40 crores which would be helpful to the State to meet part of it" expenditure. It is also submitted that out of this amount; the amount will be provided for relief to educated unemployed and to secure for them some sort of sustenance during such period of unemployment. It is also submitted that the professionals cannot be compared with the salaried class because their conditions are different and they cannot be compared with each other. It is further submitted that if the professional has been given holidays for first period of five years then the salaried persons have also been given benefit. The tax will not be charged from any incumbent whose salary does not exceed Rs. 40,000/-. It is further submitted that if the professional has been given holidays for first period of five years then the salaried persons have also been given benefit. The tax will not be charged from any incumbent whose salary does not exceed Rs. 40,000/-. Therefore, a low salaried employee has been left out from this incidents. It is also contended that the professionals have been given an option under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act to opt the criteria fixed for salaried employees, if such professionals find that payment of tax in accordance with the norms set for the salaried employees is either convenient or conducive to their interest they can opt for the same. It is submitted that so far as High Court employees are concerned, they are also amenable to law of State. The imposition of tax all-over the State is uniform and it has nothing to do with service conditions, it is a law of State. The employees of the High Court are not immune from payment of all taxes, which are otherwise leviable under the necessary enactments. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to survey the necessary provisions of law on the subject. This Act has been enacted under the purported exercise of power by the State Legislature conferred under Entry 60 of IInd List of VIIth Schedule of Constitution, which reads as under: "Taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments." Therefore, the Legislature has been conferred the power to impose the tax on professions, trades, callings and employments. But, at the same time, under Article 276 (i), it has been laid down that notwithstanding anything contained in Article 246, no law of the Legislature of a State relating to taxes for the benefit of the State or of a Municipality, district Board, Local Board or other local authority therein in respect of professions, trades, callings or employments shall be invalid on the ground that it relates to a tax on income, i.e. an immunity has been given for imposition of tax under Entry 60 of IInd List of VIIth Schedule. But a rider has been put under Article 276 (2) that it shall not exceed two thousand• and five hundred rupees per annum. But a rider has been put under Article 276 (2) that it shall not exceed two thousand• and five hundred rupees per annum. Article 276 (2) of the Constitution reads as under:- "Art. 276 (2) : The total amount payable in respect of anyone person to the State or to anyone municipality, district board, local board or other local authority in the State by way of taxes on professions, trades, calling and employments shall not exceed two thousand and five hundred rupees per annum." Under Article 276 (3), it has been laid down that the power of Legislature of a State to make laws as aforesaid with respect to taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments shall not be construed as limiting in any way the power of Parliament to make laws with respect to taxes on income accruing from or arising out of professions, trades, callings and employments. The idea behind it is that the competence of the Parliament to levy the taxes on professions, trades, callings and employment" will also not be denuded of its power. The whole idea behind this is that the State should also be given a limited power to collect the tax on professions, trades, callings and employments and such collection will not be held to be invalid, just because the Parliament is also competent to legislate on that subject; but the rider is that the amount in question shall not exceed more than Rs. 2,500/-. It is true that under Entry 83 of List-I of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution, the Parliament alone is competent to legislate on the tax on income, but by virtue of grafting exception under Article 276 of the Constitution that this area has been left open for the State Legislature to enact the law on the subject. Therefore, so far as the competence of the State Legislature is concerned, there cannot be two opinion. Suffice it to say that such question has been agitated before the Hon. Supreme Court and their Lordships have already upheld the power of the State Legislature and in that connection, a reference may be made to Kamta Prasad v. Ex. Officer, Ballahgarh ( AIR 1974 SC 685 ) where similar question came with regard to the competence of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishaus Act to levy of professional tax and, their Lordships have affirmed the validity. Officer, Ballahgarh ( AIR 1974 SC 685 ) where similar question came with regard to the competence of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishaus Act to levy of professional tax and, their Lordships have affirmed the validity. In that content, their Lordships held that the State is competent under Entry 60 of List-II of VIIth Schedule and it can levy the lax on professions, trades. callings and employments and likewise, District Board, Local Board and other local authority. Therefore, the power of the State to legislate with the rider as provided in Article 276 (2) of the Constitution has been affirmed by their Lordships of the Hon. Supreme Court. Recently, the levy of professional tax in State of Karnataka has been upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Shivananjundappa v. State of Karnataka [ 1993 (2) MPWN 222 ]. Similar challenge in various High Courts have also been negatived in the case of Sushil Chander v. State of U.P., (FB) ( AIR 1969 All. 317 ). A Full Bench of Kerala High Court in K.G. Prakasan v. State of Kerala (I.L.R. 1979 (2) Kerala 454), has taken the same view. Similarly in Kisan Supdu v. Bhusawal B. Municipality ( AIR 1966 Bom. 15 ), their Lordships have affirmed the similar provision. Therefore, so far as the State Legislature's competence is concerned, there cannot be two opinion in the matter. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the decision of Hon. Supreme Court given in the case of R.R. Engineering v. Zila Parishad ( AIR 1980 SC 1088 ). This was a case in which the validity of U.P. Kshetra Samitis and Zila Parishads Act was challenged and their Lordships have upheld the validity of this provisions. However, the word of caution was mentioned which was specifically brought to our notice, which reads as under: "While doing so, we would like to utter a word of caution. The fact that one of the components of the impugned tax, namely, the component of 'Circumstances' is referrable to other entries in addition to Entry 60, should not be construed as conferring an unlimited charter on the local authorities to impose disproportionately excessive levies on the assessees who are subject to their jurisdiction. An excessive levy on circumstances will tend to blur the distinction between a tax on income and a tax on circumstances. An excessive levy on circumstances will tend to blur the distinction between a tax on income and a tax on circumstances. Income will then cease to be a mere measure or yardstick of the tax and will 'become the very subject matter of the tax. Restraint in this behalf will be a prudent prescription for the local authorities to follow." This caution, in any case, does not benefit the petitioner. It is only against an excessive levy which tend to blur the distinction between the tax on income and a tax on circumstances. Therefore, it was observed that if heavy doses of taxation is given then income will cease to be a mere measure or yardstick of the tax and will become the very subject matter of the tax. Therefore, a restraint was indicated. But, here, there is no such over-lapping. In the present case, it is only the Entry 60 of List-II of VIIth Schedule which covers the present impost. Therefore, so far as the competence of the State Legislature is concerned, there cannot be two opinion. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to the various provisions; therefore, it will be necessary to refer to the scheme of the Act. Therefore, so far as the competence of the State Legislature is concerned, there cannot be two opinion. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to the various provisions; therefore, it will be necessary to refer to the scheme of the Act. Section 2 of the Act deals with definitions and relevant definition which are necessary for our purpose in order to appreciate the argument, are sections 2 (e) and 2 (h), which read as under:- "S.2 (e) : 'Income' means,-(i) profits and gains; (ii) dividends and interests; (iii) the value of any benefit or prerequisite whether convertible into money or not, obtained from a company either by a director or a person who has a substantial interest in the company, and any sum paid by any such company in respect of any obligations, which, but for such payment would have been payable by the director or other person aforesaid, accuring or arising to a person within the State from any profession, trade or calling other than agriculture;" "S. 2 (b) : 'Salary' or 'Wages' includes payor wages, dearness allowances and all other remunerations including allowance received by any person on a regular basis whether payable in cash or kind and also includes prerequisites and profits in lieu of salary as defined in section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (No. 43 of 1961) but does not include bonus in any form and on any account, gratuity and pension;" Section 3 deals with levy and collection of tax, which reads as under: "S.3 : Levy and Collection of Tax.- (1) Subject to the provisions of article 276 of the Constitution of India and of this Act there shall be levied and collected tax on professions, trades, callings and employments. (2) Every person who carries on a trade either himself or by an agent or representative or who follows a profession or calling other than agriculture or who is in employment either wholly or in part in Madhya Pradesh and who falls under one or the other classes specified in column (3) of schedule shall, on the basis specified in the schedule in respect thereto be liable to pay tax at the rate mentioned against the class of such person in column (3) of the said Schedule; Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the schedule, where a person is covered by more than one entry of the schedule, tax under this Act shall be payable by such persons at the highest rate of tax specified in respect of such parties. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) any person falling in any of the classes specified in column (2) against serial number 2 of the schedule shall have the right to opt, in the prescribed manner, to pay tax on the annual income as specified in column (2) against serial No.1 in lieu of the tax payable by him, and on exercising the option such person shall be liable to pay tax at the rate specified in column (3) against the category specified in column (2) against serial Number 1 applicable to him, and for that purpose reference to 'salaries and wages' in serial No.1 shall be construed as a reference to the income of such person. (4) Every person who opts under sub-section (3) for payment of tax under entry at serial No.1 of the Schedule shall, subject to the provision of this Act, pay for each financial year a tax at the rate specified in serial No.1 of the Schedule if his income during the previous year exceeds forty thousand rupees. (5) Any person who is in employment in Madhya Pradesh shall be deemed to be employment even though he may be absent therefrom on leave or otherwise." Section 4 deals with the liability on the employer to deduct and pay tax on behalf of employees. Section 5 deals with the computation of income. Section 6 gives a power to the State to grant exemption. Section 7 deals with the taxing authorities. Section 5 deals with the computation of income. Section 6 gives a power to the State to grant exemption. Section 7 deals with the taxing authorities. Section 8 deals with the registration that every employer, other than any officer of the Central Government Railways or the State Government, liable to pay tax under section 4 shall obtain a certificate of registration from the Profession Tax Assessing Authority. Section 9 deals with the returns to be furnished by employers. Section 10 deals with the return to be furnished by other registered persons. Section 11 deals with the assessment of tax. Section 12 deals with the payment of tax, i.e. every employer shall pay every year tax before 30th September of the year. Section 13 deals with the penalty for non-payment of tax and section 14 deals with the notice of demand. Section 15 deals with the recovery as arrears of land revenue. Section 16 deals with the assessment or re-assessment of tax on employers and persons escaping assessment. Section 17 deals with the appeal. Section 18 deals with revisions. Section 19 deals with accounts and section 20 deals with production and inspection of accounts and documents and search of premises. Section 21 deals with refund and section 22 lays down that the taxing authority will have same power as are vested in a Court under Code of Civil Procedure. Section 23 deals with offences and section 24 deals with offences by companies. Section 25 deals with power to compound offences. Section 26 deals with Bar of prosecution where penalty imposed and section 27 deals with protection against suits or other proceedings. Section 28 deals with r power to make rules. 10. The Schedule appended to the said Act has laid down the rates of tax on professions, trades, callings and employments. Every person in employment whose annual salary of wage does not exceed Rs. 40,000/- is not liable to pay any tax and the person whose salary or wage exceeds Rs. 40,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 50,000/-, has to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as a professional tax per annum, and if the income exceeds Rs. 50,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 60,000/-, then the amount of tax is Rs. 750/- and where it exceeds Rs. 60,000/- the amount of tax is Rs. 1000/-. 40,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 50,000/-, has to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as a professional tax per annum, and if the income exceeds Rs. 50,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 60,000/-, then the amount of tax is Rs. 750/- and where it exceeds Rs. 60,000/- the amount of tax is Rs. 1000/-. In the Schedule, it has also been mentioned that where the standing in profession or calling of legal practitioner, medical practitioners, technical, chief agents, contractors, commission agents, dalals etc., they will be treated to be a professional or calling, and these categories of persons, a yardstick has been employed for population: "(a) In a place having a population of less than 50,000 and he has less than five year standing in any of these professions then he need not to pay any tax. But if his standing exceeds more than five years, but less than ten years, he has to pay Rs. 200/- and where his standing exceeds ten years and above, but less than fifteen years, he has to pay tax of Rs. 400/- and where his standing exceeds fifteen years or more, he has to pay Rs. 600/-. (b) In a place having a population of 50,000 and above but less than 1,00,000, in case, his standing less than five years, then no tax is payable but in case of more than five years but less than ten years, he has to pay Rs. 600/- and in case, his standing exceeds ten years or more but less than fifteen years, he has to pay Rs. 800/- and in case, his standing is more than 15 years, he has to pay Rs. 1,000/-. (c) In a place having a population of 1,00,000 or more, if the standing of a person is less than five years, then no tax is payable. But if his standing is more than five years but less than ten years, then he has to pay Rs. 1,000/- and if his standing exceeds more than ten years but less than fifteen years, then he has to pay tax of Rs. 1,500/-, and if his standing exceeds more than 15 years then he has to pay Rs. 2,500/-. However, then maximum ceiling is Rs. 2,500/-. Likewise for other professionals, trades, callings and employments, according to their peculiar factors and population of town, various rates of tax have been fixed, where they reside. 1,500/-, and if his standing exceeds more than 15 years then he has to pay Rs. 2,500/-. However, then maximum ceiling is Rs. 2,500/-. Likewise for other professionals, trades, callings and employments, according to their peculiar factors and population of town, various rates of tax have been fixed, where they reside. 11. In purported exercise of power conferred on the State under section 28 of the Act" the State Government framed the rules which are known as 'M.P. Vriti Kar Adhiniyam, 1995'. By these detailed rules, a procedure has been laid down that how the return is to be furnished, how the taxing authority shall work out the taxing liability and the procedure of appeal, service of notice, etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically emphasized in this back ground that the deductions which have been made available to professionals, has not been made available to the salaried persons. In that connection, it has been submitted that the deductions under the Income Tax Act are admissible. The same deductions have not been made available to the salaried persons and likewise it has been pointed out that the deductions, which have been made permissible to the professionals, that have been denied to the salaried persons. 12. So far as the first contention regarding permissibility of the deduction on the Income Tax Act is concerned, it may be relevant to mention here that two enactments are differenet and under the Income Tax Act, it is an income, which is the basis and Parliament is competent to permit deductions admissible under that Act. But that necessarily does not follow that it is binding on the State Legislature to provide same benefit. The analogy is not proper. It is a different thing that the Legislature in its wisdom if it thinks proper that can lessen the incidence of tax so that it may not be very heavy on salaried class, it can adopt the same mode of deductions as are permissible under the I.T. Act. But this Court cannot direct the Legislature or cannot declare the provisions being invalid that certain deductions which are permissible under the I.T. Act has not been made available under this Act. As already mentioned above, that origin of both the enactments, i.e. I.T. Act and the Professions Tax Act, are different. But this Court cannot direct the Legislature or cannot declare the provisions being invalid that certain deductions which are permissible under the I.T. Act has not been made available under this Act. As already mentioned above, that origin of both the enactments, i.e. I.T. Act and the Professions Tax Act, are different. The I.T. Act is covered by Entry 82 of List-II of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution and as against, the professional tax is covered by Entry 60 of List-II of VIIth Schedule; therefore, there is nothing common between the two. The basis, in one is the income and in the another, it is professional, trades, callings and employments. Therefore, this argument has no merit and the same is over-ruled. 13. Section 5 of the Act lays down the computation of income. Certain deductions have been made from the gross income, namely, salary and wages of other persons engaged by incumbent in professions or callings; rent in respect , of building to house, the business as well as rent on account of machinery furniture and other similar goods taken on lease or hire; all kinds of taxes, repairs and renewals of immovable property let out on rent subject to a maximum of 6.25 per cent of the annual rental value; interest on borrowed capital; repairs of the buildings and rents of the premises where the business is carried on; electric charges in respect of business premises where the business is carried on; and such other deductions as may be prescribed. Therefore, certain deductions have been permitted by the State Legislature in its wisdom. But simply because certain deductions are permissible under the Act to certain class of persons and it is not admissible to other class of persons like salaried persons it cannot be struck down as ultra-vires of Articles 14 of the Constitution. The professions and salaried class are two different classes and they are not similarly placed; therefore, there is no discrimination between persons similarly placed. Likewise, simply because, certain deductions are permissible under the I.T. Act and the same are not made available under this Act, there is no justification to declare section 5 as ultra-vires. 14. The professions and salaried class are two different classes and they are not similarly placed; therefore, there is no discrimination between persons similarly placed. Likewise, simply because, certain deductions are permissible under the I.T. Act and the same are not made available under this Act, there is no justification to declare section 5 as ultra-vires. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under sub-section (3) of section 3 an option has been given to all class of persons as mentioned in Schedule to opt for mode of payment of tax as is admissible to salaried class of person, therefore, it is submitted that they form a same class and they should also be given all deductions as are admisible to other class of persons including professionals. It is submitted that they form one class and they cannot be discriminated. The submission of the learned counsel is not justified and the cases, which have been cited by the learned counsel in the case of S.M. Transports Ltd. v. Sankaraswamigal Mutt ( AIR 1963 SC 864 ); S.C. Parishar v. Vasantben ( AIR 1963 SC 1356 ); S.K Dutta v. Lawrence Singh ( AIR 1968 SC 658 ) and State of Kerala v. Haji K. Kutty ( AIR 1969 SC 378 ), in any case, do not advance the case of the petitioner. This option has a limited purpose only and it cannot be stretched beyond this. As already mentioned above the professional class and the service class stand on different footings and they cannot be treated to be a one class though for limited purpose by way of incorporation, an option has been given to the professionals to be covered by the salaried class for limited purpose of mode of payment of tax, it cannot be treated that by such option all class distinction is obliterated. A class distinction has been made in the Act and by sheer option of adopting the mode of payment of tax, this distinction is not abolished and both different classes cannot become one class. Hence, this argument has no merit and the same is dismissed. 15. An argument has been made regarding section 20, i.e. the power of search and seizure. It is pointed out that such power which existed in the M.P. General Sales Tax Act has now been done away in the M.P. Commercial Tax Act. Hence, this argument has no merit and the same is dismissed. 15. An argument has been made regarding section 20, i.e. the power of search and seizure. It is pointed out that such power which existed in the M.P. General Sales Tax Act has now been done away in the M.P. Commercial Tax Act. That may be so, but there is no justification to strike down the same on that count. 16. However, before parting with the case, we would like to observe that there is some anomaly with regard to deductions that professionals have been given an option to pay the tax as has been given by the salaried persons in item No.1 of the Schedule and they are also entitled to deductions but no relief for deductions have been made for poor salaried employee. Therefore, it is a fit case in which the necessary provisions should be made for the benefit of salaried class by giving some deductions as it is considered to be reasonable to the employees as most of the employees constitute middle class and the impact of the inflation has to be born by this middle class only; therefore, the Government should provide some relief by way of deductions to salaried employees also. Advocate General has made statement at bar that Government is bringing a Legislation in Assembly shortly ameliorating the condition for salaried class. 17. The upshot of the above discussions is that we do not find any merit in this petition and the connected petitions appended with the schedule and they are dismissed and the provisions of the Act is declared intra-vires. No order as to costs.