TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, for a writ of mandamus, the petitioners assail the validity of Entry 20 (h) of the schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Traders, callings and Employment Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The petitioners who are engaged in the business of xerox copying have been held liable to pay tax in terms of Section 3 of the Act, read with Entry 20 (h) to the tune of Rs. 550/- per annum. Mr. Indra Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the amount of tax stipulated by the Entry afore-mentioned, is highly excessive and that since it bears no co-relation with the business turned over by the petitioners the same, is totally arbitrary. I find no substance is either one of these submissions. So long as the Act, restricts the tax on professions, trades callings and employments to less than what is fixed under Article 276 of the Constitution, the amounts stipulated cannot be called in question on the ground that the same is excessive or arbitrary. It is well settled that in matters relating to taxation, the persons on whom the tax burden should fall the goods that should be subjected to such tax, the mode of levy and process by which it should be collected and even the rates and the classification of individuals and goods, the legislature enjoy considerable latitude and play at the joints. Within the para meters of the Constitutional frame-work, a tax on professions trades, calling and employments, depending upon the nature of the profession, trade or calling can be imposed by the legislature stipulating such amount as may in its wisdom appear to be reasonable. It is therefore difficult to interfere with Entry 20 (h) only on the ground that the same stipulates an excessive amount or an amount which has no co-relation with the total business turned-over by a person practicing any professional, trade calling or a moment. As a matter of fact, the method by which the legislature would subject the profession, trade or calling to a tax within the comprehension of Article 276, is also an area in which it would enjoy considerable freedom. As a matter of fact, the method by which the legislature would subject the profession, trade or calling to a tax within the comprehension of Article 276, is also an area in which it would enjoy considerable freedom. Merely because, it was possible for the legislature to prescribe a tax on professions trades or callings by reference to the extent of business conducted by the person, concerned or the income that he derives from any such profession, trade or calling would not mean that a lumpsum provided for purposes of taxation in the schedule to the Act should be interfered with or substituted by any alternative system of levy just because the alternative method may sound more fair or reasonable. Reference can in this connection can be gainfully made to the decision of this Court in B. P. AUTOMOBILES AND ors. v. STATE. OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. , 55 SCC 93 and in KARNATAKA FILM industry DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. , v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS finance COMMISSIONER, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE AND ORS. , AIR1995 Kant 397 , AIR1995 KAR 397 , ILR1995 KAR 1758 In the circumstances, therefore I see no reason to interfere. These Writ Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed by in the circumstances without any orders as to costs.