LexTHE PIONEER MOTORS (PRIVATE) LTD versus THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NAGERCOIL.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 609 of the word "factory " and that the appellant has '96' been rightly convicted of the offence of working the A~-;,. factory without obtaining a licence. We therefore H. BA:w~n~:wol• dismiss the appeal. v. Appeal di8missed. 51•1• of Bombay THE PIONEER MOTORS (PRIVATE) LTD. v. Raghubar Dayol ]. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NAGERCOIL. (and connected appeals) (J. L. KAPUR, M. HrnAYATULLAH and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) Profession Tax-Provision for time before levy, if mandatory- Reasonableness-Commissioner'> powers, if can carry out executive powers of the Municipality-" Profession", definition of-Travan- core District Municipalities Act, rn6 (Act XX ill of the Malayalam year III6), ss. I6, 78, 9I. The imposition of "profession tax" by the respondent Municipal Council under the Travancore District Municipalities Act (Act XXIII of the Malayalam year n16) was challenged on the grounds, inter alia (1) that the requisite notification was not published by the Municipal Council but by its commissioner, (2) that the period of thirty days which was given for filing objections to the imposition was insufficient in Jaw which required a period of "not Jess than a month ", and (3) that this was a mandatory provision under the proviso to s. 78 of the Act. Held, tr.at under s. r6 the Commissioner being the executive authority of the Municipal Council was authorised to give effect to the resolutions of the Council and to perform all its executive duties. The words "not being less than one month" in the proviso to s. 78 implied the necessity for one clear' month's notice exclud- ing the first and last day of the month, but the use of the words " reasonable period " before the word~ " not being less than one mont.h " showed that the time given must be reasonable. In view of the facts of the case the period allowed must be regarded as reasonable and to have complied with the provision which is directory in its later part. Commissioner. of Income-tax v. Ekbal and Co. [1945] 13 I.T.R. 154 and Thompson v. Stimpson, [196o] 3 All E.R. 500, distinguished. · Municipal Council, Cud<lapah v. The Madras and Soutlurn Mahratta Railway Ltd. (1929) I.L.R. 52 Mad. 779, The Borough Municipality of Amalner v. The Pratap Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Amalner, I.L.R. [1952] Born. 918 and Kalu Karim v. Municipality of Broull (1927) I.L.R. 51 Bom. 764, referred to. I96I 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] I96I The definition of "profession" as given in s. 81 includes business. J:Jioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. \", CrvrL APPELLATE JuRI8DICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 499 to 502 of 1958. Munidpal c~uncil. AppPals from the ju(lgment and decree dated July .Vagmoil 13, 1956, of the forml'r Travancore-Cochin High Court in A. S. Nos. 94, !l5, 96 and 156 of 1952. G. S. Pathak and G. C. Mathur, for the appelhmts (in C. A8. Nos. +!l!l to 501of58). P. George and M. R. Krishna Pil/,ai, for the appel- lrtnts (in C. A.No. 502 of 58). T. N. Subramania Iyer, R. Gaiwpathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent. 1961. .January 27. The Judgment of the Court was _delivered by Kapur J. KAPUR, J.-These four appeals are brought against the judgments and decrees of the erstwhile High Court of Travancore-Cochin. The appellants were the plain- tiffs in the respective suits out of which these appeals have arisen and the respondent was the defendant in all the suits. As rtll t.he suits involve a common ques- tion of law, it will be convenient to dispose of them by one judgment. The facts of the cases are these. On September 9, 1943, the N agercoil Municipal Council the respondent, passed a resolution under A. 78 of the Travancore Dis- trict Municipalities Act (Act XX III of the Malayalam year 1116), hereinafter called the Act. J3y this resolution, it was resolved to levy a profession tax at the rates specified in the schedule. ;This was notified in the Government Gazette of September 26, 1943, under the name of the Commissioner of the respondent Council. In this notification, it was stated :- " Any inhabitant of the local municipal town objecting to the proposal may submit his objection in writing to this office within 30 days of date of publication of this notification in the Government Gazette." This notification was also published in a local news- paper called the Abhimani. It does not appear, nor is there any assertion or allegation that any 3 S.C.R.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.