Municipal Council, Rajahmundry vs Nidamaru Jaladurga Prasadarayudu and Another

Devadoss, J.—C.R.P. No. 375 of 1924: This is an application to revise the order of the Principal District Munsif of Rajahmundry. The

petitioner is the Municipal Council of Rajahmundry. The respondent was assessed to profession tas and he brought a suit for the recovery of the

amount collected from him on the ground that the collection was illegal. The main contention in the case is whether the Municipal Council published

a notification as required by Section 80 of the District Municipalities Act. Under that S. when a Municipal Council shall have determined under the

provisions of Sections 78 and 79 to levy any tax or toll for the first time or at a new rate, the Chairman shall forthwith publish a notification in the

District Gazette and by beat of drum specifying the rate at which the tax or toll shall be levied from a date to be specified in the notification. The

notification published by the Municipal Council on'' the 16th October, 1920 was to the following effect:

This (i.e. profession) tax will be levied at the maximum rates in Schedule IV of the District Municipalities Act (V of 1920).

This notification does not comply with the requirements of Section 80. What the Municipal Council published amounted only that the profession

tax will be levied at an increased rate. It ought to mention in the notification the rate at which the profession tax was going to be levied. Instead of

that the Council published a notification to the effect that it would collect at the maximum rates in Schedule IV. The reference to Schedule IV is not

a sufficient compliance with the clear terms of Section 80; for that S. says the rate at which the tax is to be levied should be mentioned. I think this

is a serious defect in the notification published and it cannot be cured in any way. When the Municipal Council propose to levy a tax it must make

the people understand at what rate it is going to collect the tax and should not simply say it is going to collect the tax as provided for by the District

Municipalities Act in Schedule IV or anything of the kind. On this point the plaintiff was entitled to succeed and the District Munsif was right in

holding that the Municipal Council could not collect the tax when the notification did not comply with the requirements of the Law. The Revision

Petition is dismissed with costs.

After delivering the judgment my attention is drawn to a judgment of Mr. Justice Jackson in The Krishna Jute and Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The

Municipal Council, and I am glad to find that I am in agreement with him.

C.R.P. Nos. 376 and 377 of 1924. Same order as the above in the above two petitions but the respondent will have his costs only in C.R.P.

No. 377 of 1924.