K K KURUVILLA Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER PARATHODE PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.66 of the Kerala Panchayats Act (The Act, for short) says (among other things) that every Panchayat shall levy in its area a profession tax. S.69 lays down how this tax is to be levied:

(2.) The appellant before us exercises a profession, the profession of a planter (we are using the word, "profession" to include everything the pursuit of which is mentioned in S.69(1)(ii)(a) of the Act as attracting the tax, namely, a profession, art or calling or a business or an appointment) within the local limits of the local authority, namely, the Kanjirappally Panchayat, where he resides. But, he exercises the profession of a planter also within the limits of another local authority, namely, the Parathode Panchayat. The income derived by him from his profession in each Panchayat is sufficient to attract the maximum levy of Rs. 125/- per half year. He had paid the entire tax due for the two half years of 1964-65, namely, Rs. 250/-, to the Kanjirappally Panchayat; nevertheless the Parathode Panchayat demanded of him the tax in respect of the income earned within its limits, namely, the maximum amount of Rs. 125/- for each of these half years. The appellant came with the present writ petition for quashing this demand made by the Parathode Panchayat, and, his petition having been dismissed by a learned single judge of this Court on the strength of the division bench ruling in Executive Officer v. Abraham 1968 KLT 252 , he has come with this appeal, his contention being that both sub-s.(4) and sub-s.(5) of S.69 of the Act preclude the Parathode Panchayat from making any demand on him.

(3.) The case depends entirely on the true construction of sub-s.(4) and sub-s.(5) of S.69. Sub-s.(4) is a comparatively simple sub-section. But sub-s.(5) because of its inept wording indeed that charge might well be levelled against the section as a whole presents considerable difficulty.