9911796707
TMI Blog1940 (9) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso rejected the plea advanced on behalf of the creditor that the petitioner was also disqualified under Proviso (C). The petitioner was admittedly not assessed to profession-tax within the two years preceding the 1st October, 1937. His assessment was actually made on 15th January, 1938, but it was retrospective, so that it covers the half year beginning 1st April, 1937. The learned District Judge, applying Section 137-B of the Madras City Municipal Act, has held that a person who is assessed to profession-tax in respect of any portion of the two years immediately preceding the 1st October, 1937, comes within the mischief of Proviso (B) to Section 3(ii) even though the assessment was not made within the two years immediately preceding the 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch will determine limitation : and with reference to the preparation of the electoral roll, the electoral roll must obviously be prepared with reference to the assessments as they actually exist at the time when the electoral roll is prepared, and it could not be invalidated by any retrospective assessments made thereafter. Moreover, the words of Proviso (B) to Section 3(ii) of Act IV of 1938 are perfectly plain audit is impossible to read them as if the criterion for the exclusion was the actual period for which the tax was payable and not the time within which the assessment was made. 3. An argument has been based on the form B prescribed under the Act for the certificate under Section 27, which form provides for details regarding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tha Odayar v. Srinivasa Aiyar AIR1939Mad942 . It has been argued that the terms of Rule 7 framed under the Act lend some support to the creditor's contention. By this rule a person who has been assessed to property-tax, which assessment would disqualify him under Proviso (C) to Section 3(ii), is permitted to get rid of the disqualification by proving that during the relevant period he was not the owner of the property in respect of which the assessment was levied. Presumably the intention of this rule is to cover cases in which the Municipal assessment register was not up to date so that the assessment would stand in the name of some one who does not actually pay it. We are not concerned now with the validity of this rule, but it may we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
