Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0262

From Panchayatwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

yearly this proviso cannot have any effect. - Assainar v. State of Kerala - 1991 (2) KLT 172: 1991(2) KLJ 285.

Panchayats Act, 1960 (Kerala) S.74 [Corresponding to S.204 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994] & Panchayats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules 1963 – Rule 26 - Omission to pay a liability barred by limitation whether constitutes an offence – In order to constitute the omission an offence under Rule 26 read with the second proviso to S.74 it must be of an amount "due by him" and the omission must be “wilful" also: A claim that has become barred by limitation without taking any effective steps for recovery cannot be aid to be 'due for the purpose of constituting an omission and as such an offence, even though law of limitation only bars the remedy and does not extinguish the right. The question of wilful omission can arise only after demand was made or distraint was attempted. - Executive Officer v. Velayudhan Nadar - 1988 (2) KLT 138: 1988 (1) KLJ 735.

Prosecution for non payment of licence fee - Court where prosecution is launched if competent to sit in judgment over validity of bye-laws prescribing licence fee - Question of quid pro quo if can be agitated before Criminal Court – The Magistrate before whom the prosecution is launched. is not expected to sit in judgment over the validity of the bye-laws or resolutions on the basis of which the fee was levied or the correctness or propriety of the amount. If those things are also subject to magisterial scrutiny on questions of correctness and propriety the working of the local bodies will become difficult. A collateral challenge of the levy or its quantitative or qualitatively propriety by way of defence in a prosecution without challenging the same before the appropriate forum cannot be entertained. Element of quid pro quo, apart from the question of its application and extend, is not a matter to be agitated when the assessee is prosecuted. – Ex. Officer v. Velayudhan Nadar – 1988 (2) KLT 138 : 1988 (1) KLJ 735.

Person engaged in agricultural operations whether liable to profession tax - Agriculture if a calling - 'Calling' meaning of - The word 'calling' is a word of very wide import and it means one's usual occupation, vocation, business or trade. It follows that the pursuit of agriculture is nothing else than the pursuit of a calling and a person who is engaged in agricultural operations is liable to profession tax under S.69 of the Act. - Velu v. Executive Officer, Erumayur Panchayat - 1967 KLT 350 : 1967 KLJ 443 : AIR 1968 Ker. 41 : ILR 1967 (1) Ker. 474 : 1967 KLR 486.

Person holding appointment within Panchayat - Working on deputation outside and reside outside - If liable to tax - A person who resides in one Panchayat in another Panchayat, is liable to profession tax in both the Panchayats. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the first respondent held an appointment within the Panchayat area and that he was receiving his salary from that appointment. His case, therefore, clearly fell under S.69(1)(ii)(a) and he is liable to assessment. – Vadakkarapathy Panchayat v. Kumara Menon - 1978 KLT 322.

Registered society conducting hospital – Calling - Scope - Society being a person it has to be held that Society was exercising a calling in running the hospital. - Knanaya Medical Mission v. State of Kerala - 1972 KLT 102.

'Person' – Food Corporation of India whether a 'person' liable to pay profession tax – Sub-s.(6) of S.69 makes it clear, beyond doubt that the legislature contemplated that, profession tax should be levied, under the said section, not merely from companies and natural persons but also from firms, associations, Joint Hindu families etc. Hence Food Corporation of India is liable to be assessed to profession tax. – Food Corporation of India v. Puthupariyaram Panchayat – 1978 KLT 517 : ILR 1978 (2) Ker. 245.

Appellant Society running a hospital within Panchayat area - Whether liable to profession tax - The only question which is relevant for the purpose of this case is to find out whether the society intended to make or was making a profit from conducting the hospital. Since in this case the society has not proved that there was no intention to make or was making a profit from conducting the hospital. Since in this case the society has not proved that there was no intention to make profit or that no profit was actually made or that it was utilising the profit for augmenting the fund for the development of the hospital or earmarked it for the better running of the hospital itself, it has to be held that the society was carrying on an activity for profit, and therefore, transacting business within the Panchayat. – The Kanaya Medical Mission v. State – ILR 1971 (2) Ker. 309.

Religious institution devoted to charitable work owning lands and getting these lands cultivated - If constitutes a 'calling' and liable to profession tax - Calling - Interpretation of - If the test to be applied is merely as to whether such an activity is in fact carried on and whether it has resulted in some benefit, or gain, monetary or otherwise, then all such incidental activities will be liable to be brought within the expression "calling". In the context in which the expression "calling" occurs in the s interpreted as meaning the principal occupation followed by a person for the purposes of earning his livelihood. It follows that the petitioner-Monastery cannot be regarded as exercising any profession, art

Book.png ഈ താൾ 2018 -ലെ പഞ്ചായത്ത് റെപ്പോ നിർമ്മാണം യജ്ഞത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമായി സൃഷ്ടിച്ചതാണ്.

വർഗ്ഗം:റെപ്പോയിൽ സൃഷ്ടിക്കപ്പെട്ട ലേഖനങ്ങൾ