MANAGER, GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Vs. KUNNATHOOR GRAMA PANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, M/s GTL Infrastructure Ltd, is a company engaged in delivering passive telecommunication infrastructure service. They have been issued with a license for Cellular Mobile Telephone Services in the Kerala Circle, as is evident from Annexure-A1 Registration Certificate. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused in S.T. No.1250/2022 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sasthamcotta. The aforesaid case has been instituted based on a complaint lodged by the Kunnathoor Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary under Sec. 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act r/w Rule 27 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1996.

(2.) In the complaint, it is stated that the petitioner has failed to remit a sum of Rs.10,740.00 being the arrears payable by the petitioner herein to the 1st respondent for the period covering 2021-2022.

(3.) Sri. G. Santhosh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that initiating the prosecution proceeding without complying with the statutory provisions in its letter and spirit cannot be sustained. According to the learned counsel, only in those cases where it is shown that the distraint or sufficient distraint of a defaulter's property is impracticable that the Secretary may venture to prosecute the defaulter before the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel would contend that there is total noncompliance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy, and Appeal) Rules, 1996. According to the learned counsel, in terms of the rules, the notice issued under Rule 14 had to contain a statement regarding the period from which the tax is imposed, a description regarding the occupation of the property or institution on which the tax is imposed, the amount of tax, fee of demand notice or cost of notice, the date from which the tax is due and also a statement of the liability incurred on account of default in remitting the amount. None of these details have been furnished in the demand notice issued under Rule 14, contends the learned counsel.