THE CHAIRMAN, MADRAS STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. GOBICHETTIPALAYAM MUNICIPALITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision proceeding involves a question of some interest and importance. That question may be tersely expressed in the form whether the Madras State Electricity Board, a statutory body, transacting the business of the supply of electricity to consumers in many Municipalities and Panchayats of the State, is liable to pay profession tax for the concerned half year in all those places, or can claim that a single payment of profession tax at the maximum fate of Rs. 125 for the half year at one centre of business, or at its headquarters will suffice, and that the amount of this tax must be proportionately divided among all the Municipalities and Panchayats, where the Board maintains Branch establishments supplying electricity to the concerned consumers. The point really arose with reference to Gobichettipalayam Municipality in a suit to recover several assessments of half -yearly profession tax amounts from the petitioner Board.

(2.) THE point argued by Sri C. Ramakrishna for the Board can be placed, at its highest level, in the following form. There are certain dicta of Muttuswami Ayyar, J., in an early case Tuticorin Municipality v. South Indian Railway I.L.R. (1890) Mad. 78, on the nature of this tax and the liability of a vast organisation like the South Indian Railway in that case " to pay as many profession taxes as there are Municipal Towns through which their Railway passes", in the words of the learned Judge. Sri Ramakrishna relies on this decision, for his view that profession tax is really of the character of " a licence or registration fee", to quote Muttuswami Ayyar, J., and that, it need be paid only once, particularly at the maximum rate, though there may be several centres where the concerned company, which is a legal person, is conducting its business.

(3.) THIS argument, unfortunately, is unsustainable because of the broad fact that Muttuswami Ayyar, J., was really laying down the law with regard to the District Municipalities Act (IV of 1884) as it then stood, since then, there have been several very significant developments, and the Act incorporating the latest amendments, as it stands today, exhibits a very significant dichotomy as between a ' person ' and a ' company', the two entities being treated differently in the several relevant sections. As far as Act IV of 1884 is concerned, certain features of it are vital for elucidating the dicta of Muttuswami Ayyar, J., in Tuticorin Municipality v. South Indian Railway I.L.R. (1890) Mad. 78. First of all, ' person ' was defined in Section 3(xxii) of that Act, to include any company or association, of body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Secondly, under Section 53 of that Act, the liability was fixed upon a person as defined, and under Section 59, a person who carries on more professions or trades than one, or holds more offices or appointments than one, was to be charged only under any one of such designations or classes, on his aggregate income. Even more significantly, under Section 60, no person shall be Fable to the payment of tax under Section 53, who shall prove that he has paid the tax for the same half year in any other Municipality. It is for this reason that Muttuswami Ayyar, J., held that the South Indian Railway need to pay tax once at the highest rate, though it may be conducting business in all the Municipal Towns through which the Railway passes. Another early decision of this Court, namely, Municipal Council of Tellicherry v. Bank of Madras I.L.R. (1892) Mad. 153, may also be referred to, for the view that even if the Bank carried on more than one class of business, it would not be liable to pay more than one tax, though the relevant class might have to be determined by the aggregate income.