A SWAMINATHA AYYAR Vs. TALUK BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions arise out of two suits by the plaintiff-petitioner to recover from the defendant, the Taluk. Board of Nannilam represented by its President, two sums which he alleges are the amount of profession tax illegally levied on him for the years 1923-24 and. 1925-26, and which he has been compelled to pay by legal process. His grievance is that he has been assessed for the first of those years on a Class 1 income and for the second year on a Class 2 income, where as he claims that, the correct basis of assessment was his income-tax returns for those years which would have brought him within a lower class of income and made him liable to a lower rate of profession tax. The substantial defence raised to the petitioner's claim is Section 228, Madras Local Boards Act. This provides, Sub- section (1): No assessment or demand made, and no charge imposed under the authority of this Act, shall be impeached or affected by reason of any clerical error or by reason of any mistake: (a): in respect of the name, residence, place of business or occupation of any person; or (b) in the description of any property or thing; or (c) in respect of the amount assessed, demanded or charged; provided that the provisions of this Act have been, in substance and effect, complied with.

(2.) And Sub-section (2): No suit shall be brought in any Court to recover any sum of money collected under the authority of this Act or to recover damages on account of any assessment or collection of money under the said authority; provided that the provisions of this Act have been in substance and effect complied with.

(3.) The question to be determined is therefore has the assessment for profession tax been made upon the petitioner in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act. By Rule 9, Sch. 4 of the Act the President of a Local Board is entrusted with the duty off classifying persons assessable to profession tax according to the amount of their income. The rule fixes classes according to the scales of income and the maximum rate of tax leviable in respect of each class. Thus, at the top of the list stands Class 1 which includes incomes not less than Rs. 2,000 per mensem subject to a maximum half yearly tax of Rs. 110, and at the bottom is Class 10 comprising incomes between Rs. 50 and Rs. 25 per mensem subject to a maximum half yearly tax of eight annas. Rule 11 indicates the methods of making the classification. It says: The President may classify all persons liable under Rule 9 on general considerations with reference to the nature and reputed value of their business, the size and rental of residential and business premises, the quantity of articles dealt with, the number of persons employed and the income-tax paid to Government.