Section 55:

55. Constitutionality of tax law – Parliament – Power to make laws – Executive and Parliament – Law as colourable device – Breach of contract—In an action questioning the constitutionality of the Campement Sites Tax Act, HELD (i) in interpreting the Constitution, it is best to consider its own specific provisions rather than seek guidance from other differently drafted Constitutions; (ii) the concept of a tax and the general right of protection from deprivation of property proclaimed in section 3 of the Constitution are mutually exclusive; (iii) the power of Parliament to impose a tax is not limited by the provisions of section 8 governing the conditions for the compulsory acquisition of property, except to the extent that the measures for the enforcement of the tax, as distinct from its imposition, are shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society; and in this perspective, taxation measures and policies are matters of political philosophy and judgment and not matters for judicial review and decision; (iv) whether or not a taxing statute is a colourable device designed to circumvent a constitutional prohibition raises a question not of bona fides or mala fides but of legislative competence; (v) although the imposition of a tax is not subject to judicial control, the Courts are competent to determine whether the purported tax is a tax proper and not, for example, a forced loan without compensation; (vi) to regard the tax in issue as a breach of contractual obligations by the Executive towards campement site lessees would be to regard the Executive and Parliament as one; and the Executive could not contractually or otherwise fetter the law-making powers of Parliament; (vii) the Constitution provides for equality before the Courts, the equal protection of the law and the non-discriminatory character of laws on [Issue 1] CON – 182 Revised Laws of Mauritius specified grounds and, in this regard, the Act in question did not violate the Constitution. Union of Campement Sites Owners and Lessees v Government of Mauritius (1984).