COMMISSIONER OF THE SAMASTIPUR Vs. RANDHIR KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by the Commissioners of Samastipur Municipality from the decision of the learned Small Cause Court Judge, dismissing the suit of the Municipality against the defendant-opposite party for realisation of professional tax for four years, i.e., from 1959-60 to 1962-63. In my opinion, the decision of the learned Small Cause Court Judge dismissing the suit is correct and it has got to be upheld, although for some different reasons, as I am going to give in my judgment.

(2.) Under Section 82(1)(ff) of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (hearinafter called the Act), a tax on the trader, professions, callings and employments especified in the Fourth Schedule at such rates not exceeding rates specified therein as may from time to time be determined by the Commissioners at a meeting, can be imposed. The procedure prescribed for imposition of such tax has been laid down in Part IV-A of the Act, which contains Sections 150-A to 150-E. Some of the Section s are copies of similar procedure prescribed in the Patna Municipal Corporation Act under Section 177 of that Act. But all of them have not been copied or incorporated in the Act. Section 150-A of the Act says:

(3.) In the back-ground of the principles of law which I have enunciated with reference to the relevant provisions of the Act, I find, on the statements of fact given to me, that notice under Section 150-B(2)-Exhibit 4-was given asking the defendant to file return in respect of the year 1958-59 and first half of the year 1959-60. Notices of assessment, which are Exhibits A and A (1), were given intimating to the defendant that a sum of Rs. 30 had been imposed upon him as professional tax for the years 195.9-1960 and 1960-61. Firstly, giving of notice for two financial years was illegal and unjustified. Assessment has got to be made and its notice has got to be given for each half-year, unless the case is covered by the second proviso to Section 150-A. Even then, the defendant filed his objection, which is Exhibit 5, under Section 150-E. But this objection was not disposed of in accordance with law. Under Section 117 it has got to be disposed of, and it is necessary that a notice has got to be given about the hearing to the person who has filed his review application objecting to the assessment made on him. No such notice was given to the defendant. A general notice given to the public by beat of drum two or three days before the date fixed for the hearing of the objections filed by all persons was no notice in the eye of law and no reasonable and legal opportunity was given to the defendant-assessee which can be said to be an adequate opportunity to him for the hearing of his review application. That being so, in my opinion this is an additional reason that the notice of assessment given in respect of the veto's 1959-60 and 1960-61 cannot induce him to hold that the assessment of professional tax on the defendant was valid even in respect of those two years. 11 is undisputed that no other assessment notice was given in respect of any year or any half-year in question. I, therefore, hold that on account of failure of the Municipality to follow the procedure warranted by law for assessment of professional tax, the alleged assessment and demand of tax is ultra vires and cannot be decreed.