9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Liability of respondent to pay profession tax under District Municipalities Act, 1920. 2. Characterization of payments made by respondent as voluntary or involuntary. Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute between the Municipal Council of Tuticorin (appellant) and a firm (respondent) regarding the liability to pay half-yearly profession tax. The District Munsif initially held the respondent liable under Section 93 of the District Municipalities Act, 1920. However, the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin reversed this decision, stating that the respondent was not liable for the tax. The High Court examined the issue and referred to a previous decision binding on them, which established that the principal office or place of employment must be within the Municipality's jurisdiction for the tax to be levied. The evidence presented did not establish Tuticorin as the principal office of the respondent, leading to the conclusion that the tax was not rightfully demanded for the period in question. 2. The second issue revolved around whether the payments made by the respondent were voluntary or involuntary. The District Munsif had found the payments to be involuntary, but the Subordinate Judge did not address this aspect. The High Court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the payments, noting that the first five payments were made without any objection. However, the sixth payment was made under protest after the respondent realized they might not be liable for the tax. The court delved into legal precedents to determine the nature of voluntary payments, emphasizing that the mere absence of protest does not render a payment involuntary. Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the first five payments were voluntary, while the sixth payment made under protest was eligible for recovery. Consequently, the court modified the lower court's decree, awarding the respondent a partial sum and dismissing the suit for the remainder, with costs distributed among the parties.
|
