K.G.George vs State Of Kerala on 18 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37257 of 2004(I)


1. K.G.GEORGE, KANNARAYIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ELSY RAJAN, THANNIMOOTTIL HOUSE,
3. SAKEER.S. A.M.HOUSE,
4. GEORGE MATHEW, PALLIATHU HOUSE,
5. GEROGE VARGHESE.P. MALAYATOOR PALLIATHU
6. C.N.RAJAN, CHEMPARATHI VILAYIL,
7. THOMAS MATHEW, MULLASSERIL,
8. ABY.T.MATHEW, THAZHATHILLATHU,
9. V.S.VALSARAJAN, VALIYAMALAYIL,
10. JAYAKUMAR P.G. PADINJARE PUTHUSSERIL,
11. P.P.VARGHESE, PLANTODATHIL,
12. SAM ABRAHAM, MUNDAPLACKAL,
13. P.C.GEORGE, PARAYIL, VADASSERIKKARA.
14. SAM ABRAHAM, MUNDAKULATHU,
15. P.T.KURUVILA, PARUMALAYIL,
16. P.S.MOHAMMED, SHERIN SUPER MARKET,
17. GEORGE MATHEW, KULATHINKAL,
18. N.K.THOMAS, MEEZHIPERUMATHU,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE VADASSERIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.BHASKARAN PILLAI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :18/06/2009

 O R D E R
                  C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                   --------------------------------------------
                        W.P.C. NO. 37257 OF 2004
                   --------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009

                                 JUDGMENT

Petitioners are challenging demand of profession tax for the years

1998-99 and 1999-2000. Even though the matter is pending in this

Court for the last five years, no counter affidavit is filed by the

Panchayath. In any case I do not think the case should be kept pending

any longer. While the case of the petitioners is that demand is not in

accordance with Rules, counsel for the Panchayath submitted that

profession tax is demanded based on the income of the petitioners, as

required under Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Profession Tax)

Rules. Rule 6 provides for determination of income for the purpose of

computation of tax liability. Since individual orders are not served by

the Panchayath and Panchayath has not filed any statement or affidavit

in this Court, I dispose of the WPC directing the Secretary of the

Panchayath to issue individual orders demanding profession tax from

all the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt

2

of a copy of this judgment. Petitioners will furnish registration

certificate issued under the KVAT Act, assessment orders under the

Act and also copies of income-tax returns acknowledged by the

assessing officer for the purpose of assessment, etc. Interim order

granted by this Court against recovery will remain in force until the

Secretary determines the tax liability not only for the years in question

but also for subsequent years. If any of the petitioners is not registered

under the KVAT Act or not filing income tax returns, they can furnish

details of turnover and income, and it is open to the Secretary of the

Panchayath to conduct enquiry about the correctness of the statement

of such petitioner with regard to turnover and income and determine

the tax liability.

W.P.C. is disposed of as above.

(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk

3