CHIDAMBARAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. PVENUGOPAL PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question here is not free from difficulty. The suit was by the Chidambaram Municipality to recover house tax and water tax for the year ending 31 March 1934 in respect of houses belonging to defendant. The point to be decided here is whether the suit was maintainable by the Municipality in the absence of a proper and legal notice of demand previously served upon the defendant by the Municipality. There were other points raised but it is this question which has given rise to this petition. The learned District Munsif has held that the plaintiff-Municipality did not sufficiently prove that it had served what it was alleged was the required notice upon the defendant and that in the absence of such proof, the Municipality was not entitled to file the suit. The question of whether the notice was really served is one of fact and therefore if it had been the only question, the lower Court's judgment could not be interfered with, although I am bound to say that there appears to me to have been certainly prima facie proof that the defendant was served with a. notice of his liability to pay the tax and the defendant did not go into the witness-box and deny the receipt of the notice merely contenting himself with a denial in his written statement. But the question here is whether, even if such a notice of demand has not been given, the Municipality is entitled to sue. The statute imposes a clear liability to pay tax in respect of property and therefore there is that statutory liability. The question is whether there are any rules which provide that as a condition precedent for the enforcement of that liability upon the owner of property there must first have been a demand in compliance with the rules. The only rules relating to the collection of taxes are rules 29 onwards ins Schedule 4, District Municipalities Act. Rule 29 provides for a notice or a bill to be served upon a person containing (a) a statement of the period and a description of the occupation, property or thing for which the tax is charged; and (b) a notice of the liability incurred in default of payment.

(2.) When is a notice in that form required? Rule 29 says that this notice or bill is to be served before the provisions of Rule 30 are to be enforced. Rule 29(1) reads: The (executive authority) shall serve upon such person a bill for the sum due before he proceeds to enforce the provisions of Rule 30.

(3.) What is provided for in Rule 30? First" of all, there is the very summary and salutary provision that, if the amount due on account of any tax is not paid within 15 days from the service of the notice, the tax may be recovered by distraint under warrant and sale of moveable property of the defaulter. That is Rule 30(1). Sub-rule (2) of the same rule provides that: If for any reason the distraint, or a sufficient distraint, of the defaulter's property is impracticable the executive authority may prosecute the defaulter before a Magistrate. Sub-rule (3) says: Nothing herein contained shall preclude the council from suing in a civil Court for any tax due to it under this Act.