NARAYANI R PRASAD Vs. MAVELIKARA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case relates to the levy of profession tax on the petitioner, who is running a dispensary in Mavelikkara Municipal Town and is an assessee to Income Tax. Petitioners case is that profession tax should be levied on her under S.110 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1961 (the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder on the basis of the income tax assessment as provided in R.21 of Schedule II (Taxation and Finance Rules) to the Act. Briefly the facts are these.

(2.) Petitioner alleges that her annual income has never exceeded Rs.36000/-. In support of which she has produced the income tax assessment Ext. P14 for the year 1991-92 as also return Ext. P15 for the year 1992-93. A bill was issued to her by the first respondent, Commissioner of the Municipality proposing to assess the petitioner on a huge half yearly income of Rs.60,000/- for the second half year of 1990-91. On the petitioners revision against the same the first respondent passed the order Ext. P1 on 12-8-1991 fixing her half yearly income at Rs.31,000/- and the tax at Rs.125/-. Petitioner would submit that the income fixed is inflated having regard to the total income for the year of Rs.29130/- as evident from the Chartered Accountants certificate Ext. P2. The same pattern was followed for the first half year of 1991-92 in which the revision petition filed by the petitioner without remitting the tax was dismissed as time barred by the proceedings Ext. P4 dated 20-9-1991.

(3.) The second half of 1991-92 was a repeat performance of what had happened in the prior years with the first respondent proposing to assess the petitioner to a tax of Rs.500/-, which was reduced to Rs.40,000/- with a tax liability of Rs.250/- on revision by the petitioners, by the proceedings Ext. P7 dated 24-2-1992 of the first respondent. Petitioner appealed to the second respondent Municipal Council as per Ext. P8 appeal memorandum in which she contended that her annual income had never exceeded Rs.36,000/- But the Municipal Council disposed of the appeal by the order Ext. P9 dated 27-3-1992 by which they fixed the petitioners half yearly income at Rs.36,000/- while as a matter of fact her contention was that her annual income did never exceed Rs.36,000/- Ext. P9 is one of the orders challenged in this writ petition.