The provision in regard to time in the context must be held to be directory and not mandatory.

Headnote:
TAXATION - MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - PROFESSION TAX - PUBLICATION OF RESOLUTION - TIME FOR OBJECTIONS - REASONABLE PERIOD - MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY - RELIGIOUS TRUST - CARRYING ON PROFESSION - QUESTION NOT DECIDED - REMAND.
Fact of the Case:

The Nagercoil Municipal Council passed a resolution under S. 78 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act (Act XXIII of the Malyalam year 1116) to levy a profession tax. The resolution was notified in the Government Gazette and a local newspaper, inviting objections within 30 days. Three private limited companies and a religious trust filed suits challenging the legality of the tax. The suits were decreed by the trial court, but the High Court reversed the decrees and dismissed the suits.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the publication of the resolution was in accordance with the provisions of S. 78 of the Act and that the time given for objections, although not a clear month, was reasonable and complied with the provision, which was directory in its later part. The Court also held that the question whether the religious trust was carrying on a profession, as defined in S. 91 of the Act, was not decided by the lower courts and remitted the case to the High Court for decision on that point.
Issues: 1. Whether the publication of the resolution was in accordance with the provisions of S. 78 of the Act? 2. Whether the time given for objections was reasonable and complied with the provision? 3. Whether the religious trust was carrying on a profession, as defined in S. 91 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of the municipality to levy the tax does not depend upon the period prescribed for notice for objections. The power to tax is derived from the Statute; the provisions relating to the length of notice inviting objections and publication are merely procedural. 2. The object of the notification is to inform the future rate payers and to invite objections from them. The proviso itself uses words "reasonable time." Reading "reasonable time" and "not being less than one month" together, it is clear that the time given must be reasonable and the legislature has only added a guide so that periods shorter than a month may not be fixed. 3. The question whether the religious trust was carrying on a profession, as defined in S. 91 of the Act, was not decided by the lower courts and remitted the case to the High Court for decision on that point.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed three appeals with costs and remitted one appeal to the High Court for decision on the question whether the religious trust was carrying on a profession.

Judgment

KAPUR, J. : These four appeals are brought against the judgments and decrees of the erstwhile High Court of Travancore-Cochin. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the respective suits out of which these appeals have arisen and the respondent was the defendant in all the suits. As all the suits involve a common question of law, it will be convenient to dispose of them by one judgment.

2. The facts of the cases are these. On September 9, 1943, the Nagercoil Municipal Council the respondent, passed a resolution under S. 78 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act (Act XXIII of the Malyalam year 1116) hereinafter called the Act. By this resolution, it was resolved to levy a profession tax at the rates specified in the schedule. This was notified in the Government Gazette of September 26, 1943, under the name of the Commissioner of the respondent Council. In this notification, it was stated:

"Any inhabitant of the local municipal town objecting to the proposal may submit his objection in writing to this office within 30 days of date of publication of this notificaion in the Government Gazette."

This notification was also published in a local newspaper called the "Abhimani". It does not appear, not is there any assertion or allegation that any objection was raised to this tax by the appellants or any one else. On January 12, 1944, a resolution under S. 79 of the Act was passed, by which the profession tax became payable from the beginning of the second half of the Malyalam year 1119. A trust, Kottar Chetty Ninar Desikavinayaga Swamy filed a suit on February 10, 1946, challenging the legality of this tax. C. A. 502 of 1958 has arisen out of that suit. Amongst other allegations, which are common to the other suits, which will be mentioned presently, the trust pleaded that it was not carrying on a profession within the meaning of the word used in the Act and that it was only a religious trust and had no profession. That suit was tried by the Munsif and was decreed. An appeal was taken against that decree to the District Judge.

3. Three private limited companies carrying on business brought three suits challenging the legality of the imposition of the tax out of which the other three appeals, i. e., Civil Appeals Nos. 499 to 501, have arisen. In these suits, it was alleged that the publication of the resolution was not in accordance with the provisions of S. 78 of the Act in so far as (1) it was not published by the respondent Municipal Council, but by the Commissioner; (2) the newspaper in which the advertisement was published was not selected by the Council; (3) time given in the notification was fixed not by the Council, but by the Commissioner; and (4) the period prescribed in the notification, that is, "within 30 days", was not fixed by the Council and was not in accordance with the Act. The respondent Municipal Council denied these allegations and several issues were raised and the suits were decreed. The appeal which had been taken in the suit by the Trust was also decided in favour of that plaintiff. The result was that all the suits and the appeal were decided against the respondent Municipal Council. It took four appeals to the High Court. The decrees were reversed and the suits of the various plaintiffs were dismissed. Against those judgments and decrees these four appeals have been brought by the plaintiffs, in the various suits, who are now the appellants.

4. In Civil Appeals Nos. 499 to 501, Counsel for the appellants has raised two points (1) that the publication was not by the Council and (2) that the time given in the notification, i. e., "within 30 days" was not in accordance with the law and as these were conditions precedent to the legality of the resolution under S. 79 the resolution was ultra vires and therefore the imposition of the tax was illegal. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the various provisions of the Act upon which the whole argument has proceeded.

5. Chapter VI of the Act deals with Ta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document