K P PAUL Vs. KARTHIYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of the judgment of the Second Class Magistrate of Mukundapuram in C. C. Nos. 1465, 1466 and 1467 of 1965. The complaints were filed by the Executive Officer, Alagappanagar Panchayat against the respondent (accused) who is common in all these cases under S.74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act (shortly stated the Act) read with R.26 of the Taxation and Appeal Rules, 1963 (shortly stated the Rules) and Sch. V Clause.8 (2) of the Act for failure to pay profession tax and wilfully preventing distraint.

(2.) Accused Karthiayani was employed in the Alagappa Textiles and she was assessed to profession tax of rupee one for each of the half years and the profession tax due from her is for the years 1954-55, 55-56 and 56-57. In each of these cases demand notice had been sent earlier and after the coming into force of the Act. Arrear demand notices were issued under R.13 of the rules intimating that prosecution would be launched against her if the tax amount was not paid within the period specified in the notice. The accused failed to pay and hence distraint warrant to attach her movables was issued authorising the Panchayat Assistant Pw. 2 to execute the warrant. Accused and her husband prevented the execution of the warrant and so Pw. 2 made a report to the effect that the distraint has proved impracticable on account of the obstruction caused by the accused. Again a show cause notice was issued calling upon her to show cause why she should not be prosecuted. As no reply was received Pw. 1 the Executive Officer filed the complaints in court. After the examination of the witnesses learned Magistrate acquitted the accused and the correctness of the decisions are challenged in these appeals filed after obtaining special leave. Since there is no decided authority on the questions involved, the cases were referred to the Division Bench and that is how the matter is now before us. As the questions involved are common in these three appeals it would be convenient to dispose of the matter in one common judgment.

(3.) Two questions arise for decision: (1) Whether prosecution would lie for arrears of profession tax for these three years; (2) whether the complaints are barred by limitation. It is contended by the learned defence counsel that there is no provision for prosecution in the T. C. Panchayat Act which was in force when the accused committed the default and it is not open now for the panchayat to avail of the special provisions under the new Act which came into force much later. It is true that during these three years it was the T. C. Panchayat Act that was in force. There, the only provision for recovery of arrears of tax is as provided in S.57 of the Act, which says: