SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Ker) 238

T.KOCHU THOMMEN
MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
EDATHUA PANCHAYAT – Respondent


Judgment :-

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













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top