LAWS(MAD)-1971-2-51

MANICKAM PILLAI Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPALITY

Decided On February 17, 1971
MANICKAM PILLAI Appellant
V/S
The Commissioner, Municipality Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Daraisami made the argument that so far at Ex. P. 1, P. 5, P. 9, P. 13, P. 15 and P. 16 are concerned, the order of the court below is improper. He based the argument on the ground that is regard to the relevant half years severed by Ex. P. 1, P. 5, P. 9 and P. 13 there is a violation of R. 29 (3) of the Taxation and Finance Rules - schedule IV - by executive authority, in the sense that no notice has been served within the succeeding half year in respect of the tax due from the accused petitioner. In fact, Mr. Doraiswami's argument is that in respect of Ex. P. 1, P. 5. P. 9 and P. 13, they have been served on the petitioner only on 10th November 1967 and 21st November 1967. That would be clearly beyond the period contemplated by R. 29 (3).When ones It is established or even doubted that notices were not served on the accused petitioner within the succeeding half year as contemplated in R. 29(3) then, there is a total blanket ban on the executive authority to resort to R. 30, for R. 29 (30) states that the ten for the half year first mentioned in the sub -rule shall not be recovered in the manner laid down is R.30. Therefore, on a construction of R. 29 (3) and R. 30, I am of the view that the executive authority cannot possibly resort to the use of R. 30. Once the executive authority cannot exploit R. 30, it cannot equally exploit R. 35 for Rs. 35 completes the tax due on account of the building which remarks unpaid in whole or in part at the end of the period specified in sub -rule (1) of Rule 30. So, the legal disability preventing the executive authority from a resort to R. 30 automatically invoices the exclusion of R. 35 from the arms of the executive authority. This would apparently give an impression that the concerned Municipality may late the revenue in the absence of report to R. 30 and 35 of Taxation and Florence Rules -Schedule IV. But the Legislative has found a safety value is the provision of the Rule 4 of Rule 29 which runs that;