C.M.INDIRA Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Accounts Officer (Bills), BSNL, Kannur, who is arrayed as accused in ST No. 544/2007 of JFCM, Payyannur, is the petitioner. This petition is filed under S.482 of CrPC to quash Annexure A - 6 complaint. In Annexure A - 6 complaint, the complainant - Kunhimangalam Grama Panchayat has alleged that the accused failed to pay Professional Tax for the year 2006-07. The total amount payable was shown to be Rs.2,500/-. It was mentioned that the Professional Tax was assessed taking into account the total business turnover of the two telephone exchanges situated within the limits of that Grama Panchayat. The petitioner - BSNL contends that BSNL is a company wholly owned by the Government of India and that the main function of BSNL is to provide basic telephones, mobile service connection, internet connections and other allied services. It is further contended that all those services are done through the telephone exchanges and towers constructed by the BSNL. It is not disputed that there are various telephone exchanges throughout the State.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the BSNL is not doing any business but only renders service to the subscribers and no buying, making, manufacturing, exporting or importing is done by the BSNL in the telephone exchanges within the jurisdiction of the complainant - Panchayat. According to the accused, the BSNL is only collecting service taxes from the subscribers and these service taxes so collected are paid to the Government of India. Hence, according to the petitioner Annexure A - 6 complaint filed against the petitioner for the alleged non payment of professional tax is an abuse of process of Court, for, according to the petitioner the BSNL is not liable to pay professional tax.

(3.) S.204 of Kerala Pachayat Raj Act, 1994, deals with the collection of professional tax. It reads: