Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0248

authority competent to levy building tax is bound to decide the issue whether or not the building sought to be assessed, is includible in any one of the exempted categories under S.72, before he decides to levy the tax. In short, an enquiry in the above line should be made before the tax was levied. An enquiry of this nature can be had only after notice to the affected party. - Rev. Sr. Baptista v. State of Kerala - 1985 KLT 9: 1985 KLJ 284.

S.66(3) (Corresponding to S.200 OT the corresponding to S.200 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]— Panchayats (Service Taxes) Rules. 1962, Rr. 3 & 4 – Tax relating to street lighting - Validity – Constitution of Schedule, item 46 in List II – The power granted under S.66(3) is controlled and guided by the wording of the section which indicates the purposes. Apart from that, the power is also circumscribed by the rules to be framed by Government which they have done. Therefore it cannot be said that there is any excessive delegation either. - E. K. Joseph v. Upputhara Panchayat - 1968 KLT 43.

S.66A Corresponding to S.200 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 19941- land cess assessment became final - In similar case assessment held unlawful by Court - Recovery proceedings can be challenged. - Cottanad Plantations v. Executive Officer - 1976 KLT 827 : ILR 1977 (1) Ker. 376.

S.66A (Corresponding to S.200 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]– Owner – Levy of land cess - Whether lessees are liable to pay tax – It is not possible to read the term 'owner' in the provision in S.66A as referring to the person in occupation of the land. There cannot be a levy of cess against and an obligation to pay by both. As the matter now stands the lessees are not liable to pay tax. - Cochin Malabar Estates v. Executive Officer – 1975 KLT 102. S.66A [Corresponding to S.200 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]- Validity - Levy of land cess – Determination on the basis of capita value - Competency of State legislature – Tax on capital value of the assets when such assets consist also of agricultural land may fall within Entry 97 of List of Constitution since it must be considered as a residuary power vested in the Parliament. If the tax happens to be one on capital value the State legislature is incompetent to enact such law. Merely because such capital value is taken as the basis for determining the quantum of tax leviable it does not become a tax on such capital value. - Cochin Malabar Estate v. Executive Officer - 1975 KLT 102.

Ss.66A & 144 [Corresponding to S.200 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]- Levy of land cess - Appeal from the order of Assessment officer - Deposit of the amount demanded is not a condition precedent for presenting the appeal – Panchayat (Levy and Collection of Land Cess) Rules, 1971, R.7. - Cochin Malabar Estates & Industries Ltd. v. Executive Officer - 1979 KLT 840.

Ss.66(4), 71 & 151 Corresponding to S.200 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994– Imposition of duty on transfer of property – Rates not fixed by Government after the Act – Fixation of rate under repealed statutes if can be availed - Interpretation and General Clauses Act (1125, T.C.), S.23 - There is an enactment now imposing duty making provisions therein which are similar to those in some of the repealed enactments and introducing the provisions into the area where another statute repealed had not imposed any such duty. The effect of a repeal and re-enactment can be to unify and consolidate the law. The fact that the motive in passing the legislation is stated to be to unify and consolidate the law pertaining to particular institutions like the panchayats in the State does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the statute is not a repealing and re-enacting one. Inconsistency must be not between the statutes under which the fixation was made and the statute that has been re-enacted, but it must be between the fixation and the provisions of the re-enacted statute. Though the Madras District Boards Act and the Madras Village Panchayats Act had fixed the maximum rate of 5%, the duty fixed is only 4%. This 4% is warranted by S.71 (1) (b) of the Act. So between the fixation and the provisions of the statute there is no inconsistency. - Varkey George v. District Registrar - 1964 KLT 740 : 1964 KLJ 1065.

ഈ താൾ 2018 -ലെ പഞ്ചായത്ത് റെപ്പോ നിർമ്മാണം യജ്ഞത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമായി സൃഷ്ടിച്ചതാണ്.