529 A.2d 1194 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1987
Opinion by
This is an appeal by Cletus P. Lyman, and Richard A. Ash, Appellants,
The sole issue presented for review by this appeal is whether a substantial question of constitutionality is present so as to justify the exercise of a court’s equitable jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 42 Pa. C. S. §§7531-7541, despite the existence of a statutory administrative remedy. We conclude that such an issue is present here and reverse the dismissal of Appellants’ complaint.
In their declaratory judgment complaint, the sole relief that Appellants’ sought from the common pleas court was a declaration that the provisions of the Philadelphia Code imposing business and mercantile taxes and licensing requirements upon attorneys was unconstitutional as infringing upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s power to regulate the practice of law as provided by Article 5, § 10(e), of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Appellees argue the existence of appeals to the BLIR
Appellants here are challenging the constitutionality of the tax and licensing enabling legislation, not the imposition of the taxes and licensing requirements.
In view of the foregoing, we shall reverse the order of the common pleas court and remand for such further proceedings as are necessary. In so doing, we express no opinion as to the merits, or lack thereof, in the contentions raised by Appellants. We do note that in our decision in Meitner v. Township of Cheltenham, 75 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 46, 460 A.2d 1235 (1983), we decided a similar issue adversely to the position taken by Appellants here.
Order
Now, August 14, 1987, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County at Docket No. 2025, May Term 1985, dated October 23, 1985, is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Although named as a party-appellant, Sixteen Twelve Latimer Partners is not a party to this appeal, since it is not licensed to practice law in this Commonwealth.
Appellant Cletus Lyman has also actions pending challenging the revocation of his mercantile license and the imposition of business and mercantile taxes upon his law practice.