JOJO Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in these two cases is one and the same person and the first respondent in the Cr1. R. P. is also the same as the respondent in Crl. M. C. No. 4024 of 1998. Common questions arise in both these cases and hence they are disposed of through a common order.

(2.) THE petitioner has been running business of distribution of gas cylinders with regard to cooking gas within the limits of Irinjalakuda Municipality . Alleging that empty cylinders are stacked in a building situated within the limits of Porathisserry panchayat, the Panchayat assessed the petitioner to professional tax. On finding that restraint proceedings became unsuccessful, prosecution was launched before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court , Irinjalakuda. THE prosecution in respect of the dues for the year 1993-94 ended up in conviction. THE appeal filed before the Sessions Court, Trichur, challenging the same also went against the petitioner. THE challenge in Cr1. R. P. No. 783 of 1999 is of the concurrent finding with regard to criminal liability for non-payment of professional tax levied by the Panchayat for the year 1993-94. THE Panchayat continued the assessment for the subsequent years also. THE challenge in crl. M. C. No. 4024 of 1998 is with regard to the prosecution launched to recover the dues for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96.

(3.) HAVING considered the rival contentions I am of the view that the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to the limited scope of the present proceedings has to be accepted. It may be that, as contended by the petitioner, he is not transacting business as such in the building situated within the limits of the respondent Panchayat. It may also be true that double taxation is not contemplated under the Act, in which case the proper course would be for the Panchayat or the petitioner to approach the Government to apportion the tax between the Municipality and the Panchayat as contemplated in S. 69 (5) of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1960 as also S. 245 (4)of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. However, the present proceedings being criminal in nature and the scope of consideration being not the validity of the assessment, but only the aspect of payment and enforceability of the assessments already passed, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to go into the said contentions raised by the petitioner.