TATA OIL MILLS CO. LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM MUNICIPALITY
LAWS(KER)-1963-10-47
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on October 04,1963

Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner, Ernakulam Municipality Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HARRISONS ANDCROSSFIELD V .COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
HARRISONS ANDCROSSFIELD LTD. V .COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA RAM NATH MOHAN HARGOVINDAS VS. JANPAD SABHA IN ALL THE APPEALS :JANPAD SABHA IN ALL THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]





JUDGEMENT

C.A.VAIDIALINGAM,J. - (1.)IN this batch of 9 writ petitions,the respective petitioners challenge the assessment to profession tax,made by the concerned Municipalities,for the half years beginning from 1 -10 -1961,under the Kerala Municipalities Act,1960(Act XIV of 1961 ).Act XIV of 1961,which,there is no controversy came into force from 1 -10 -1961.
(2.)THESE writ petitions can be broadly grouped under four heads:( 1)O.P.859/62,wherein the concerned company challenges the proceedings initiated for levy of profession tax by the Ernakulam Municipality.The respondent Municipal Commissioner,in that writ petition,is represented by Mr.V.R.Krishna Iyer,learned counsel.( 2)The second group of cases is taken in by O.P.Nos.904/62 1919/62 and 2768/62,wherein the respective petitioners,again,challenge the proceedings initiated for levy of profession tax under the same statute,by the Commissioner of the Alleppey Municipal Council.The said Commissioner Municipal Council is represented by Mr.S.Narayanan Potti,learned counsel,( 3)The third group of cases is taken by O,P.940/62,and 942/62,wherein again,the respective petitioners challenge similar proceedings taken by the Commissioner of the Kottayam Municipal Council.Here again the said respondent officer is represented by learned counsel Mr.K.Velayudhan Nair.( 4)The fourth and last group is taken in by O.P.Nos.2479/62,2482/62 and 2515/62,wherein also the respective petitioners challenge similar proceedings taker! under the same Act,by the Commissioner of the Quilon Municipal Council.The Commissioner of that Municipality is represented by Mr.V.K.K.Menon,learned counsel.
In O.P.1919/62,Mr.T.S.Krishnamoorthy Iyer,learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the initiation of proceedings as against his client,by the Commissioner of the Alleppey Municipal Council;and in O.P.Nos.940 and 942 of 1962,Mr.K.P.Abraham,learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the initiation of proceedings as against his clients by the Kottayam Municipality.In all the other writ petitions the respective petitioners are represented by Mr.P.K.Kurien,learned counsel.

(3.)AT this stage,it is not really necessary for me to go into the details of the attacks levelled against,and the manner in which the assessments have been completed by,the assessing authority.Those aspects will be dealt with by me,after considering the common questions of law that have been raised by all the learned counsel for the petitioners in these proceedings,regarding the jurisdiction of the Officers concerned,to initiate and complete the levy,assessment and collection of profession tax under the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act,Act XIV of 1961.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.