M KANNAN Vs. COMMISSIONER KANCHEEPURAM MUNICIPALITY KANCHEEPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned orders made in Na.Ka.No.A5/7542/98 dated 29.9.1998, Na.Ka.No.A5/7542/98 dated 29.9.1998 and Na.Ka.No,28148/98/P1 dated 5.2.1999 respectively.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1964 in the Vellore Municipality and was promoted as Assistant in the year 1981, and further promoted as Assistant Revenue Officer on 30.10.1992. He retired on 30.9.1998. THE impugned orders have been issued ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.59,548/-, Rs.2,858/- and Rs.62,406/-respectively from the petitioner. THE said impugned orders are challenged on the ground of jurisdictional issue relying upon the earlier orders of the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No,3503 of 1996 dated 28.11.1996 and O.A.No,4761 of 1992 dated 19.12.1997. In the said orders, the Tribunal considered similar issue and held that the Revenue Officers in the Local Bodies cannot be made liable for the time barred arrears of tax dues and no recovery has to be made from them. THE Tribunal had come to such a conclusion by placing reliance on paragraph 3 of G.O.Ms.No.1881 R.D. & L.A. Department, dated 14.9.1981, wherein it is stated that the responsibility to take proceedings to recover the tax before they become time barred, vests with the Commissioner and the Revenue Officers are not responsible for the tax arrears having become time barred and that the only duty of the Revenue Officers is to report about the tax arrears. THE said order was passed by the Tribunal relying the decision of this Court V.NAGARAJAN Vs. COMMISSIONER, SALEM MUNICIPALITY, SALEM, 1988 WLR 38, wherein this Court considered a similar issue and following an earlier decision in W.P.Nos.3364 to 3369 of 1976 dated 23.11.1976 held as under: "...THE respondent in the present case seemed to have acted against the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Municipal Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, but withheld recovery process on account of stay by the Government. Now, by virtue of the Government vacating the stay, the process of recovery from the salary of the petitioner is being set in motion by the present order of the respondent. It is only in that context a writ of Mandamus is being asked for by the petitioner, to forbear the respondent from recovering from the salary of the petitioner, the time barred profession taxes. Basically, there are no grounds at all to pin down the liability on the petitioner, as now being done. THE proceedings taken in this behalf are the result of a misconception of the legal position. THEy have to stand ignored and cannot be implemented. Taking note of the ratio of this Court, I have to hold that the petitioner cannot be mulcted with liability on this account...."