Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0261

61 in law, and in issuing the demand notice the first respondent acted contrary to law, and, therefore, acted without jurisdiction. - Mathew v. Edathua Panchayat - 1988 (2) KLT 329.

Effect of amendment of R.3(1) – Takes effect from 17-5-1990 for the financial year 1990-91 and not from 1-4-1991 - Panchayats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules 1963, R.3 - The resolution determining to levy a tax enumerated in the Act shall specify the rate at which any such tax shall be levied and the date from which it shall be levied. Before passing the resolution imposing a tax for the first time or increasing the rate of an existing tax the Panchayat shall publish notice as provided therein. By the amendment of the Rule, as far as the petitioners are concerned the maximum tax recoverable from them was reduced. That reduction as per rule came into effect on 17-5-1990. So with effect from that date the petitioners are liable to pay profession tax as per the amended Rule only. Panchayat cannot claim any amount exceeding the maximum rates prescribed as per rules as from 17-5-1990. Viewed in this light, the bar contained in 3rd proviso to R.3 of Taxation and Appeal Rules cannot be pressed into service in assessing a person to Profession Tax. Assessment to Profession Tax being half yearly, this proviso cannot have any effect. - Assainar v. State at Kerala - 1991 (2) KLT 172 : 1991 (2) KLJ 285.

SRS Notice under R.10(1) is necessary - This is an important provision conferring some rights on and granting protection to the proposed assesses. It must necessarily be followed by the Executive Authority concerned. – Thoshiba Anand L.W. Association v. Exe. Officer Nedumbassery Panchayat – 1985 KLT 95 : 1985 KLJ 115.


Individual notice if necessary in the case of an assessee who is an employee – All these are cases involving employees of different offices. Notices were issued under Rule 15(2) to all the heads of offices and statements were obtained from them. Assessments were only on the basis of those statements. Therefore noncompliance of Rule 10 cannot be taken as a defect in the prosecution. - Executive Officer v. Mohammed - 1989 (1) KLT 360 : 1989 KLJ 131 [Doubted in 1989 (2) KLT 599]

Individual notice under S.10 if necessary in the case of an assessee who is an employee of a company. - The conclusion about a swift collection of tax soon after the collection of information from the employer without any other intervening exercise can, at least in some cases, visit innocent persons with harassing but avoidable burden. A possibility of an honest mistake by an employer cannot be ruled out. The mistake can be easily cured if only an employee has some opportunity to know about it and offer his remarks to the local authority. - Legal Aid Committee for Profession Tax Payers v. State of Kerala - 1989 (2) KLT 599. (1989 (1) KLT 360 & Crl A. 578, 586 & 587 of 1986 Doubted.]

Employees of a company issued notice under R. 10 intimating about information obtained from their employer and allowing them to inspect the register - Employees if can call upon the Panchayat to furnish details as a matter of right – They issued a fiat as it were, calling upon the executing authority to furnish them the details. The statute did not provide for the same. The clear implication of the Statutory scheme is that such a step is supremely redundant. It is a responsible authority, the pay master of the assessee, that furnishes the particulars relating to the professional income of the assessee. An opportunity to scrutinise the particulars is given to the assessee by a notice issued in that behalf. If the assessee does not avail of the opportunity, he has to suffer the consequences. The finalisation of the assessment and the issue of notice of demand would be fully justified in such circumstances. - Legal mittee for Profession Tax Payers v. State of Kerala - 1989 (2) KLT 599. Panchayats Act. 1960 (Kerala) Ss.69 & 74 Corresponding to S. 204 of the Panchayat Rai Act. 1994) – Levy of Profession tax on employees – Demand Notice should be proceeded by notice under R.10 to employees - Service of notice to employer not sufficient - The levy postulated under S.69 is possible only if it is made in accordance with the rules prescribed. S.74 provides for recovery of arrears of tax, cess etc. But before recourse can be had to that Section, there should be a proper levy. Notice had been issued to the employer of the assessee under Rule 15, but no notice was given to the assesses. The demand notice and the order following it are totally unsustainable in law, and in issuing the demand notice the first respondent acted contrary to law, and, therefore, acted without jurisdiction. - Mathew v. Edathua Panchayat - 1988 (2) KLT 329.

The resolution determining to levy a tax enumerated in the Act shall specify the rate at which any such tax shall be levied and the date from which it shall be levied. Before passing the resolution imposing a tax for the first time or increasing rate of an existing tax the Panchayat shall publish notice as provided therein. By the amendment of the rule, as far as the petitioners are concerned the maximum tax recoverable from them was reduced. That reduction as per rule came into effect on 17-5-1990. So with effect from the date of petitioners are liable to pay profession tax as per the amended rule only. Panchayat cannot claim any amount exceeding the maximum rates prescribed as per Rules from 17-51990. Viewed in this light, the bar contained in 3rd proviso to R.3 of Taxation and Appeal Rules cannot be pressed into service in assessing a person to Profession Tax. Assessment to Profession Tax being half