COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATION TRIVANDRUM Vs. KAMALASANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the District Judge of Trivandrum, under S. 26 of the Trivandrum City Municipal Act, IV of 116 (Travancore). The only question that is referred for the decision of the High Court is whether Dearness Allowance is liable for assessment of Profession Tax under the said Act. Profession tax was levied by the Corporation under class XIV (I), Schedule II of the said Act which provides:-

(2.) It is clear from a perusal of the above definition that allowances came in for the consideration of the legislature and certain specified allowances were brought within the meaning of the term salary while certain others were expressly excluded. The dearness allowance in question was one that did not exist at the time of the Act, but was granted subsequent thereto on account of the rise in the prices of articles of food stuffs and other necessaries of life. It is thus clear that the dearness allowance has not been, as it could not have been contemplated and expressly brought within the meaning of the term salary.

(3.) Learned counsel for the corporation contended that the meaning given in the dictionary for the word pay is whatever is paid as remuneration for services and that dearness allowance being paid as remuneration for services, it comes within the meaning of the word pay contained in the above definition of salary. He also contended that dearness allowance would be income liable to tax under the Income Tax Act. The following principles of interpretation which are well known will furnish the answer to the question. In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Ryde Pier Co., (4 ATC 513) Rowlatt, J. said:- I agree that this case was not contemplated, but when one gets cases under the taxing law which cannot be contemplated, it does not do to make assumptions as to what they would have said had they contemplated the case.