T.KOCHU THOMMEN
MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
EDATHUA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
1. The petitioner is the Secretary of an association stated to be representing the tax-payers of the Edathua Panchayat. The complaint of the petitioner is that Ext.Pl, which is, a demand notice issued under S.74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 by the first respondent, is invalid for the reason, that there was no levy of profession tax in terms of S.69 of the Act. The procedure prescribed in R.10 of the Profession Tax Rules, 1963 and other relevant rules had not been followed before issuing Ext.P1. No notice had been issued to the assessee.
2. Counsel for the first respondent admits that Ext.P1, which is a demand notice under S.74, was not preceded by notice under R.10. Notice had been issued to the employer of the assessee under R.15, but no notice was given to the assessee. Counsel further submits that, in any view, the petitioner has no locus standi to agitate the questions raised in this Original Petition on behalf of the assessees who are not parties here.
3. S.69 reads:
"69. Profession tax.- (1) The profession tax shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed be levied every half year in every Panchayat area on
The levy postulated under S.69 is possible only if
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.