SANKARANARAYANA PILLAI Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER PANCHAYAT BOARD AYIKUDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision case, in the first instance, came before Natesan J. , who, on the view that an important question of law arises, considered that it should be decided by a Division Bench. That is how it comes before us.

(2.) THE petitioner was convicted under rule 26 (2) read with rule 33 (1) of the rules framed by the State Government in exercise of the power vested in them by S. 178 (xxii) of the Madras Panchayats Act 1958. This was on the ground that he was doing agriculture, and that he was liable to pay profession tax in respect of it, under Section 119 read with Section 121 of that Act. The court below was of the view that "agriculture" would fall within the purview of the term "calling" in Section 121. It did not precisely find as to the particular activity the petitioner was engaged in, which could be described as an agricultural operation, so as to view it as a profession.

(3.) SECTION 119 (1) confers power on a village Panchayat to levy, inter alia, a profession tax, and Section 121 provides for the manner of and procedure for levy and collection of profession tax. It is a half-yearly tax and is payable by every company or person who during the half year transacts business or exercises a profession art or calling within a specified period within that half year. Section 121 (1) (ii) says that "the profession tax shall. . . . . . be levied every half year. . . . . on every person, who in that half year (a) exercises a profession, art or calling or transacts business or holds any appointment, public or private. . . . " Section 178 contains the rule making power of the Government and clause (xxii) enables the government to frame rules, as to the realisation of any tax or other sum due to a panchayat under the Act whether by distraint or sale of moveable property, by prosecution before a Magistrate, by a suit, or otherwise. Rule 26 framed in the exercise of that power provides for distraint and sale of moveable property, and sub-rule (2) says that, if sufficient distraint of the defaulter's property is impracticable, the executive authority may prosecute the defaulter before a magistrate. Rule 33 enables the imposition of fine in such a prosecution under rule 26 (2 ). Sub-rule (1) states that, on proof to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, that a person wilfully omitted to pay the amount due by him as tax, he shall be liable to pay a fine not exceeding twice the amount due from him as tax.