SUDARSANAM ALIAS RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU Vs. THE TIRUVANNAMALAI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No. 792 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, who lost before the Court's below is the appellant herein. He instituted the suit for a declaration that the levy of the profession tax by the Municipality was illegal and for an injunction against the Municipality from recovering the said tax, as his case was that for the half year ending 30th September, 1970 he was levied a profession tax of Rs. 4 only, but for the half year ending 31st March, 1971 and 30th September, 1971, he was levied a profession tax at Rs. 75/ - assessing his income at Rs. 9,100 and this was done illegally, mala fide contrary to the provisions contained in the District Municipalities Act and the rules framed thereunder and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Though the Municipality in its written statement denied the averments contained in the plaint that the plaintiff had sent a return as contemplated by the relevant rules for the half year ending 31st March, 1971 in the latter part of the written statement itself it was admitted that the plaintiff sent such a return and in evidence also the same was admitted. Notwithstanding this admission, namely, that the plaintiff had sent a return showing the half yearly income at Rs. 600 for the half year ending with 31st March, 1971 the claim of the executive authority of the Municipality was that he did not accept the return and he estimated the income of the plaintiff at Rs. 9,100 for that half year and levied the tax ON that basis. The Municipality took up the plea that the plaintiff -appellant had not preferred any appeal to the higher authorities. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit and hence the present second appeal.

(2.) I am clearly of the opinion that the Courts below missed the point in controversy between the parties. It is Rule 19 in Schedule IV of the Madras District Municipalities Act, that covers the controversy between the parties. Rule 19 reads as follows: