LAWS(KER)-1972-2-9

KSEB Vs. CANNANORE MUNICIPALITY

Decided On February 14, 1972
KSEB Appellant
V/S
CANNANORE MUNICIPALITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for decision is whether the Kerala State Electricity Board is liable to pay profession tax under S.110 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sub-s.(1) of S.110 alone is relevant; and it reads:

(2.) The word "company" is defined in S.3(9) of the Act; and it is conceded that the petitioner is not a company within the said definition. The respondent's case is that the petitioner is a person. According to the petitioner the word "person" in S.110 of the Act means only a natural person, and the petitioner is not, therefore, liable to pay profession tax. The word "person" is not defined in the Kerala Municipalities Act; but it occurs in several sections of the Act. It is clear from the context in which the word is used in those provisions that it includes also a juristic person. For example, reference may be made to S.119(1) and 126 of the Act. S.119(1) reads:

(3.) Counsel for the respondent cited two decisions in support of the above position. The first one is a decision of the Bombay High Court in Nagpur Corporation v. N. E. L. & P. Company (AIR 1958 Bom. 498). In that case, it was contended that the Nagpur Corporation was not a person within the meaning of S.24(1) of the Electricity Act, 1910, and that it was not, therefore, liable to be proceeded against under the above section for non payment of electricity Charges due to the Electricity Board. The contention was rejected. The court pointed out that the fact that there are certain special provisions in the Electricity Act regarding local authorities, did not mean that they did not fall within the ordinary meaning of the word 'person'. The next one is the decision of the Allahabad High Court in City Board, Mussoorie v. I.T. Commissioner (AIR 1953 All. 43). In that case, the City Board, Mussoorie contended that it was not liable to pay excess profits tax on profits made by supply of electric energy and water outside its jurisdiction, as it was not a "person" within the meaning of the charging section in that Act. The contention was rejected holding that, in the absence of anything to the contrary, the word, 'person' would mean a natural person as well as a corporation. The Electricity Board is a statutory body; and it is admittedly a juristic person. The fact that a company has been defined in the Kerala Municipalities Act, and that it has been treated on a special basis for the purpose of profession tax, does not mean that a juristic person who does not fall within the definition "company" would not be a "person'' as that term is ordinarily understood in legal parlance. The provision contained in S.133 of the Kerala Municipalities Act is significant in this context. It exempts the Government from profession tax in respect of any commercial, industrial or other like undertaking which are owned or managed by or on behalf of the Government. That shows that, but for the exemption, the Government would be liable to pay profession tax under S.110 of the Act as a person.