Skip to content


Titti Krishnamurthi Vs. Sri Jagannadhapadhi Khadanga and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Mad598; (1942)2MLJ153
AppellantTitti Krishnamurthi
RespondentSri Jagannadhapadhi Khadanga and anr.
Excerpt:
- - 1. the only question in this revision petition is whether the petitioner is excluded from the definition of agriculturist on the ground that he paid profession tax for two years preceding 1st october, 1937, so as to come within proviso (b) to section 3(2) of the madras act iv of 1938. the facts are clearly established......being advised that the tax was not properly payable, he requested the orders of the inspector of local boards whether he should enforce the collection of, the tax or write it off as irrecoverable. the inspector advised the panchayat board that the demand was illegal, and that it should not be written off, but should be expunged from the tax register. these proceedings were in march, 1939, and it is reasonable to assume that when this reference to the inspector of local boards was made, everyone was aware that the importance of assessment to profession tax was in the light of act iv of 1938 something more than the actual liability to tax. the learned deputy collector has held that the cancellation of the assessment by the president on the order of the inspector of local boards was.....
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. The only question in this revision petition is whether the petitioner is excluded from the definition of agriculturist on the ground that he paid profession tax for two years preceding 1st October, 1937, so as to come within proviso (B) to Section 3(2) of the Madras Act IV of 1938. The facts are clearly established. The petitioner was assessed to profession tax for four years from 1933 to 1937. Apparently he made a protest in 1937, but there was no appeal filed in respect of any tax for any of these four years. In 1938 when the arrears of tax were demanded he objected that he had no property within the limits of the panchayat board and did not carry on any trade within those limits. Thereupon the president took legal advice and on being advised that the tax was not properly payable, he requested the orders of the Inspector of Local Boards whether he should enforce the collection of, the tax or write it off as irrecoverable. The Inspector advised the panchayat board that the demand was illegal, and that it should not be written off, but should be expunged from the tax register. These proceedings were in March, 1939, and it is reasonable to assume that when this reference to the Inspector of Local Boards was made, everyone was aware that the importance of assessment to profession tax was in the light of Act IV of 1938 something more than the actual liability to tax. The learned Deputy Collector has held that the cancellation of the assessment by the President on the order of the Inspector of Local Boards was invalid and will not affect the assessment so far as proviso (B) is concerned. It seems to me that this view is correct. The rules in Schedule 4 to the Local Boards Act (XIV of 1920) give a right of appeal against the imposition of the tax and a right to the Panchayat to cancel or modify any order passed by the President reducing or remitting a tax; but in the absence of any appeal it is provided that the assessment or demand of any tax shall be final. No power is conferred either upon the President or upon the Panchayat to cancel an assessment which has once been made and has not been challenged in appeal within the time allowed. It is open to the Panchayat to write off a tax as irrecoverable and no doubt the Panchayat may as an administrative act, instead of writing off the tax, expunge the name of the person assessed from its registers. But, this administrative act will not affect the legal position of the person taxed, in order to make a person who has been assessed into one who has not been assessed, and it is certainly not open to the Court dealing with a matter under Act IV of 1938 to go into the question whether a person who has in fact been assessed, has been assessed legally or illegally. In this view I dismiss this civil revision petition with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //