P.M.M.R. SUBBIAH NADAR & ORS. Vs. THE PULIANGUDI MUNICIPALITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER AT PULIANGUDI, SANKARANKOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in all these six appeals is whether the appellants are liable to pay profession tax as claimed by the Puliyankudi Municipality. The appellants are respectively the plaintiffs in six suits, all filed against the Puliyangudi Municipality represented by its Commissioner and tried together by the court of the District Munsif, Tenkasi. All the six plaintiffs are residents of Dalavaipuram in Ramanathapuram Dt., and they are carrying on business there in piece goods. All of them have their employees at Puliangudi (Tirunelveli Dt.) where they supply yarn to the weavers and get them woven as sarees by paying the weavers on the basis of work turned out by them. Puliangudi Municipality levied profession tax on the plaintiffs on the ground that they were 'transacting business' within Puliyangudi Municipal limits. Exs. A. 1, A. 15, A.43, A. 54, A.69 and A. 85 are the demand notices calling upon the plaintiffs to pay profession tax for the half year ending 30th September, 1971 at the highest rate of Rs. 125 each. The plaintiffs thereupon challenged the above demand notices by instituting the suits for declaration that the assessment is illegal and arbitrary and for cancelling the same as well as for the consequential relief of injunction, restraining the defendant -Municipality from collecting the said profession tax. The Municipality resisted the suits But the learned District Munsif agreed with the contentions of the plaintiffs and decreed the suits. On appeal by the Municipality, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, differed from the trial court and held that the plaintiffs were transacting business within Puliangudi municipal limits and that, therefore, the profession tax levied by the Municipality was not illegal or arbitrary or liable to be cancelled. Hence, these second appeals by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The contention of Mr. T.R. Mani, learned counsel for the plaintiffs -appellants, is that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not right to hold that the plaintiffs were 'transacting business' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The only other contention is that, in any event, under S.93(4) of the Act there should be apportionment of profession tax between the Puliyangudi Municipality and Delavoipuram Panchayat and that the plaintiffs cannot be called upon to pay one profession tax at Delavoipuram and another at Puliangudi.

(3.) To appreciate the contains of Mr. Mani, the relevant provisions may be noted first. S. 93(1) of the Act is as follows - -