Judgment.- The petitioner, it is stated by Counsel on behalf of thepetitioner, has paid profession tax to the Perinad Panchayat for the half-yearscomprised in the years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 at the rate of Rs.125 for the first four half years and at the rate of Rs. 75 for remaininghalf-years, comprised in these four years. The Executive Officer of thePeruvanthanam Panchayat is the respondent to this writ application.Peruvanthanam Panchayat demanded the profession tax from the petitioner for theeight half-years. When demand has been made for the first four half-years, thepetitioner made Exhibit P-2 representation. The reply to this was another demandfor all the four years, Exhibit P-4. There was a further representation ExhibitP-4 and the answer was a summons, from a Magistrate’s Court Exhibit P-4,apparently upon a complaint that has been launched by the Perinad Panchayat. It is clear from section 67(4) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960, that aperson cannot be held liable to two Panchayats for profession tax for the samehalf-year if he has already paid total tax due from him to one of the Panchayatswhich can assess. That the total tax due from the petitioner has been paid tothe Perinad Panchayat is fairly conceded by Counsel on behalf of the respondentbefore me. The action taken against the petitioner therefore by demanding taxfrom him and later prosecuting him for not paying tax is quite unwarranted. Iwould have therefore compensated the petitioner in full measure for such wantonabuse of the statutory powers. However, since Counsel for the respondent statedbefore me that the whole thing was a mistake, I think I should not go to thatextent. However it cannot be said that in such matters the petitioner should gowithout any compensation for all the troubles to which he has been put. In the light of the above I allow this Writ application and quash Exhibit P-3demand notice issued to the petitioner. I also direct that the respondent shouldtake immediate steps for withdrawal of the complaint made before the Magistrate.I allow this writ application in these terms. I further direct that therespondent should pay the cost of the petitioner as well as Counsel’s fee Rs.150. M.C.M. ----- Application allowed.