The Bombay High Court recently granted relief to a village panchayat member, observing that no disqualification under Section 41(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 may be initiated on the grounds of non-payment and arrears of Grampanchayat Taxes.
The Petitioner, Shaikh Wahed Yakub initiated proceedings against the Respondent No.4, member of Grampanchayat, Chitegaon and her son, who is Respondent No.5, owing to their alleged non-payment of the Grampanchayat Taxes from the year 2020-21. The taxes pertained to a godown property within the limits of the Panchayat and it was alleged that the Respondents refused to accept the notice for taxes when the same were served upon them.
In appeal, the jurisdictional Collector observed that though a notice for recovery of Rs.4,69,512/-, the Respondents had preferred an appeal before the Block Development Officer which is lis pendens. The Collector acceded to the Respondents’ claim that the signatures on the notice not to be theirs and deemed the tax assessment improper, rejecting the proceedings against the Respondents; the decision was upheld by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
Take Your SME to the Next Level with IPO Insights – Click here to Register
In the present Petition, Senior Counsel Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b.Yuvraj V. Kakde, appearing for the Petitioner reiterated their claims while also averring that the Collector erroneously rejected the appeal which was accepted by the Commissioner without application of mind.
R.V. Gore, vehemently opposed the contentions holding that for arrears to be proved, service of notice is a necessary prerequisite. Furthermore, Section 129 (3)(a-2)(d) mandates that Panchanama of refusal of notice should be signed by at least two panchas, whereas here the notice has only been signed by the peon and clerk of the Grampanchayat.
The Bench presided over by Justice Kishore C. Sant observed that mere non-payment of taxes is not sufficient reason to disqualify a Panchayat member, however it needs to be shown that despite service of notice there has been no payment of taxes within 90 days.
Justice Kishore C. Sant observed that though Panchnama was prepared, it was not signed in the presence of Panchas, combined with the conflicting statement of the employees who averred that the signatures appearing on the alleged Panchanama to not be theirs.
Referring to the failure of the Petitioner to adequately prove the proper service of notice as per manner and mode of service or bill or writ under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, the Bench upheld the orders by the Collector and Commissioner therein and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
