Mandatory levy procedure and hearing safeguards can invalidate profession tax demands, but an unauthorised representative lacks standing to challenge them.

Profession tax demand was held invalid because the statutory levy procedure under the rules was not followed: notice, opportunity to return, and a reasonable chance to show cause before classification and assessment were mandatory, so the demand notice and consequential orders were without jurisdiction. The petition nonetheless failed because the petitioner lacked locus standi, as the dispute concerned individual taxpayers rather than any public interest, and the petitioner was neither an assessee nor a duly authorised representative. The document therefore states that an unauthorised person cannot challenge such demands on behalf of assessees, even where the impugned levy is contrary to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand notice for profession tax and the consequential orders were valid when the procedure prescribed for levy under the relevant rules had not been followed. (ii) Whether the petitioner had locus standi to maintain the petition on behalf of the assessees.

Issue (i): Whether the demand notice for profession tax and the consequential orders were valid when the procedure prescribed for levy under the relevant rules had not been followed.

Analysis: The levy under the governing Act was subject to the prescribed rules, and recovery under the arrears provision could arise only after a proper levy. The notice procedure under the profession tax rules required service of notice, opportunity to return, and a reasonable opportunity to show cause before classification and levy. Those safeguards were admittedly not complied with before the demand notice was issued.

Conclusion: The demand notice and the consequential orders were unsustainable and were without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner had locus standi to maintain the petition on behalf of the assessees.

Analysis: The petition concerned the individual interests of taxpayers who were members of the association, not a matter of public interest justifying representative invocation of constitutional jurisdiction. Each assessee could approach the Court in his own right or through a duly authorised agent, and the petitioner was neither an assessee nor a duly authorised holder.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the petition.

Final Conclusion: Although the impugned demand was held to be contrary to law, the petition failed because the petitioner was not entitled to challenge it on behalf of the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for profession tax is invalid if the statutory notice and hearing requirements governing levy are not followed, but a writ petition challenging such demand cannot be maintained by an unauthorised representative who is not himself an aggrieved assessee and where no public interest element is shown.

---