MAHADEV GOKULDAS Vs. DISTRICT LOCAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application against an appellate order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakri, which the learned Magistrate passed under Section 113 of the Bombay Local Boards Act, 3923. By that order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner against a notice of demand issued against him by the District Local Board, West Khandesh, to recover a sum of Rs. 250 as professional tax for money -lending business done by the petitioner during the year 1954 -55 pins Rs. 15 -10 -0 as notice fees.

(2.) THE petitioner is a money -lender and lends monies under a licence issued to him under the Money -lenders' Act. Upon the money -lending business done by him, he is liable to pay a professional tax to the District Local Board, West Khandesh. In giving the notice of demand for the professional tax for the year 1954 -55, the Local Board took into consideration not only the money -lending business done by the petitioner in the year 1954 -55, but also the unrecovered balance of the monies lent by him in the previous year 1953 -54. The learned Magistrate approved of that mode of calculation and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

(3.) IN justifying the manner of calculating the money -lending business done by the petitioner in the year 1954 -55 upon the assumption that the petitioner had advanced a sum of Rs. 3,000 in the year 1953 -54 and had been able to recover Rs. 800 only out of it during that year, the learned Magistrate observed in the course of his judgment: Though the sum of Rs. 2,200 is a balance at the end of the year 1953 -54, still the appellant is going to receive the interest on this sum at the prescribed rate during all the subsequent years till the debt is repaid to the last pie... If any sum is lent it becomes the sum loaned not only in the year in which it was actually paid to the debtor, but during all the years till it is finally repaid in full...loan advanced in one year is the loan advanced for the next year also if it is not repaid during that year and so on... So long as the creditor continues to receive interest on such sum, that sum must be considered as the turn over of that particular year. It is surely inequitable that the creditor should go on receiving interest from year to year while the Board should receive its legitimate tax only for one year. The reasoning of the learned Magistrate, which is contained in his observation 'though the sum of Rs. 2,200 is a balance at the end of the year 1953 -54, still the appellant is going to receive the interest on this sum at the prescribed rate during all the subsequent years till the debt is repaid to the last pie' and the conclusion based upon that reasoning, namely, that theunrecovered balance of the money -lending business done in a previous year can also be taken to be monies lent in the succeeding year are hardly sound. It is true that on the unrecovered balance of Rs. 2,200, the petitioner would receive interest until the amount is recovered by him, but he is not getting away with it without having to pay tax upon it. He would have to pay income -tax upon it. Besides, merely because the petitioner would continue to receive interest on theunrecovered balance of the amount lent by him, the amount initially lent by him could by no reasonable construction be said to have been advanced twice, thrice, four times and even many more times by him. The money -lending transaction, that is the **O;ogkj** in terms of Group 2 of schedule A to the rules framed by the District Local Board of West Khandesh, would in such a case be only one. If, therefore, monies are advanced in succeeding years, that is, if fresh 'vyavaharas' are done, those would be liable to professional tax; but one and the same advance or 'vyavahara' cannot be multiplied by the number of years during which it remains unpaid and cannot in that manner become several 'vyavaharas'. If we may adopt the analogy of the income -tax, it is but too well -known that once a particular income is taxed, the same income cannot be taxed over again. Similarly, if monies advanced in a particular year are charged a professional tax, that particular money -lending transaction, assuming that all the monies lent in that year are not recovered during the course of that year, cannot be said to be a fresh advance in the succeeding year and cannot he made a subject of a professional tax during that year.