THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. CHAKKA KONDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor from the acquittal of the respondent, Chakka Kondappa, in C.C. No. 237 of 1946 in the Court of the Stationary Sub -Magistrate, Gooty. The respondent was prosecuted under Rule 33(2) of the Rules in Schedule IV attached to the Madras Local Boards Act for nonpayment of profession tax due by him and payable to the District Board, Anantapur in respect of the exercise of money -lending profession during the years 1944 -45 and 1945 -46. The total amount of tax which was demanded from him was Rs. 18 -2 -0 including a warant fee of two annas. In the charge sheet filed by the District Board President it was mentioned that the tax and the warrant fee due by the assessee could not be collected as he had refused to pay the tax when demanded by the Licence Inspector and also obstructed him in executing the warrant. The accused denied that he exercised the profession of money -lending during the periods in question within the limits of the District Board.

(2.) THE Sub -Magistrate found on the facts and the evidence that it was not satisfactorily proved that he was exercising the money -lending profession as alleged by the prosecution and that the notices of demand were not served on him as required by law and that consequently he had no opportunity to prefer an appeal to the District Board, as is provided in the Local Boards Act. The prosecution, however, raised a legal contention at the time of the trial to the effect that since assessment had been made and within the time fixed for appeal, no appeal had been filed, the assessment became final under the provisions of the Local Boards Act and it was not open to the accused to let in any evidence on the question of his liability to the tax, that is to say, on the question as to whether notices were properly served on him or not and whether he exercised the money -lending profession during the periods in dispute. The Sub -Magistrate negatived this contention also, and in the end acquitted the accused holding that no tax was lawfully due by and leviable from the accused by the Anantapur District Board.

(3.) IT is also necessary in this connection to refer to Section 228(1) of the Act which provides :