C. B. P. No. 375 of 1924. This is an application to revise the order of the Principal District Munsif of Rajahmundry. The petetioner is the Municipal Council Rajahmundry. The Respondent was assessed to profession tax 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 Sect. 80 of the District Municipalities Act. Under that section when a Municipal Council shall have determined under the provisions of Sects. 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 Gazatee 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 16th October 1920, was to following effect:—
“This (i.e profession) tax will be levied at the maximum rates in Sch. IV of the District Municipalities Act V of 1920”
This notification does not comply with the requirements of Sect. 80. What the Municipal Council published amounted only that the profession tax will he levied at an increased rate. It ought to be mentioned 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 Sch. IV. The reference to Sch. IV is not a sufficient compliance with the clear terms of Sect. 80; for that section 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 proposes to levy a tax it must make the people understand at what rate it is going to collect the tax and should not say it is going to collect the tax as provided for by the District Municipalities Act in Sch. IV or anything of the kind. On this point the plaintiff was entitled to succeed and the District Munsif was light 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 The Krishna Jute & Cotton Mills Go. Ltd. Ellore v. The Municipal Council Viziyanagaram and I am glad to find that I am in agreement with him.
C. R. P. No. 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.
K.S.DPetition dismissed.