Allowed

C.Rajan Pillai v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jul 2022WP(C)/192/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a proprietor of Mangalath Finance challenging the levy of profession tax by Kollam Corporation without considering submitted documents. The Court allowed the petition, directing the Secretary within two months to reconsider the demand and consider objections, produced documents, and this Court's relevant precedents.

What did the court decide?

Quash of Exhibits P10 and P11; direction to Secretary of Kollam Corporation to reconsider profession tax demand within two months, considering objections, documents, and precedents.

C.Rajan Pillai Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 192 OF 2015

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

C.RAJAN PILLAI

¶8

PROPRIETOR, MANGALATH FINANCE, PUNTHALATHAZAM, KOLLAM - 691 004.

¶9

BY ADV SRI.JOSE JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY

¶13

KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶14

3 THE KOLLAM CORPORATION

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.07.2022,

¶17

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No. 192/2015

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶21

---------------------------------------------------------

¶22

W.P.(C). No. 192 of 2015

¶23

--------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2022.

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following

¶26

reliefs:

¶27

Call for the records of the case leading to the demand of profession tax on the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,250/- for the first and second half of the year 2013-14 and for the first half of the year 2014-15 from respondents 2 and 3 and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order.

¶28

Declare that the levy and demand of profession tax on the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1250/- for the first and second half of the year 2013-2014 and for the first half of the year 20142015 without regard to the aggregate income of the petitioner is without authority and jurisdiction.

¶29

Call for the records of the case leading to Exts.P4, P5 and P7 from the respondents and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order.

¶30

Call for the records of the case leading to Exts.P8 & P9 bills and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order.

¶31

Declare that the respondents have authority and jurisdiction to levy and collect half yearly profession tax only on the basis of the aggregate income of the person and under the class appropriate to his aggregate income.

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 192/2015 : 3 :

¶33

The subject issue relates to Rule 3(2) of the Kerala

¶34

Municipality (Profession Tax) Rules, 2005. The question raised is as to whether the maximum amount prescribed as professional tax can be levied, without ascertaining the documents produced before the statutory authorities under the Rules. This question was considered by this Court in Central Finance & Investments and another v. Secretary, Kothamangalam Municipality [2021 (6) KHC 59] and held as follows:

¶35

“14 . I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar and I am of the considered opinion that the levy and demand of profession tax is guided by section 245 of Act, 1994 and Rules, 2005. When there are clear prescriptions contained under the Act, 1994 and the Rules, 2005 in regard to the levy of profession tax, and when a demand is made, which is objected to by the aggrieved persons, the Secretary had a duty to take into account the objections raised and apply the law applicable to the situation since the Secretary has to make the assessment in accordance with the rules applicable and the documents produced by the petitioners. From the impugned notices, I do not find any such exercise undertaken by the Secretary. Even though the Division Bench judgment of this Court is referred to, the Secretary has not specified in the demand notices as to why it is departing from the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 192/2015

¶37

: 4 :

¶38

judgment of this Court.

¶39

In my considered opinion, a judgment rendered by this Court is binding precedent on the administrative as well as quasi judicial functionaries and therefore, whenever a judgment is produced, the authority considering a statutory aspect is duty bound to apply his mind as to whether the judgment applies to the facts, circumstances and the law involved in the subject issue pending before such authority. However the Secretary of the Municipality, in my considered estimation, has given a complete go by to the Division Bench judgment of this Court and the provisions of law. When documents were produced to support the case projected in the objections, the Secretary was duty bound to assign reasons while passing the orders as to why they are not acceptable in law and the Secretary cannot brush aside such documents merely by stating that they are unbelievable to be accepted. It is clear from the impugned notices that the Secretary has not taken any effort to find out the truth of the objections filed by the petitioners by resorting to the supporting documents produced. The issue in regard to the binding nature of precedents on administrative authorities is no more res integra in view of various judgments of the Apex Court. In the State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagayach ([2012 KHC 4422: (2013) 7 SCC 25):2013(2) klt 733: AIR 2013 SC 1921: 2013 (178 Comp. Cas 502], the relevant portion reads thus:

¶40

"We fail to see why the Joint Registrar has overlooked those binding judicial precedents and the ratio decidendi. Judicial rulings and the principles are meant to be followed by the statutory authorities while deciding similar issues based on the legal principles

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 192/2015

¶42

: 5 :

¶43

settled by judicial rulings. The Joint Registrar, while passing the impugned order, has overlooked those binding judicial precedents."

¶44

16 . In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that interference is required to Exhibits P10 and P11 notices issued by the Secretary of the Municipality to the petitioners bearing Nos. R34581/10 and R3-4581/10 dated 7.8.2010 respectively. Accordingly, I quash Exhibits P10 and P11 and direct the 1st respondent-Secretary of Kothamangalam Municipality, to reconsider the issue after taking into account the objections, documents produced and the law applicable, as discussed above, at the earliest and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing a notice of hearing to the petitioners.

¶45

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.”

¶46

Following the aforesaid decision, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Secretary of the Kollam Corporation, respondent No.2, to consider Exts.P4 and P5, P7, P8 and P9 at the earliest and at

¶47

any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing a notice of hearing to the petitioner and also taking into account the decision of this Court referred to above.

¶48

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

W.P.(C) No. 192/2015

: 6 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 192/2015

¶53

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1	P1 - TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT. 20.11.2009 IN W.P. (C) NO. 5165/2009.
EXT.P2	P2 - TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT. 20.11.2009 IN WPC NO. 28666/2009.
EXT.P3	P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.14.
EXT.P4	P4 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF KOLLAM MUNICIPAL SECRETARY DT. 03.9.14.
EXT.P4(a)	P4(A) - TRUE ENGLISH VERSION OF EXT. P4 ORDER.
EXT.P5	P5 - TRUE OCPY OF PROFESSION TAX BILL DT. 17.9.14.
EXT.P5(a)	P5(A) TRUE ENGLISH VERSION OF EXT. P5.
EXT.P6:	P6 - TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT. 09.10.14 BEFORE SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION.
EXT.P6(a)	P6(A) - TRUE ENGLISH VERSION OF EXT. P6.
EXT.P7	P7 - TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT. 08.12.14.
EXT.P7(a)	P7 (A) - TRUE ENGLISH VERSION OF EXT.P7.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DEMANDING PROFESSION TAX FOR THE 2ND HALF OF THE YEAR 2014-2015.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DEMANDING PROFESSION TAX FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR 2015-16.

¶54

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶55

/True Copy/

¶56

PS to Judge.

¶57

C.Rajan Pillai v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Rajan Pillai v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Augusty Vs the State of Kerala

Laina Shiju Vs Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayath

Abdul Rahim Vs Kozhikode Muinicipal Corporation

Vinoj Vs State of Kerala

Paikattuchali Alavi Vs the Kondotty Municipality

Sebi.P. Vs the State of Kerala