ABDUL MONAF Vs. SUNAMGANJ MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 10 analogous appeals by the plaintiffs arise out of as many suits for a declaration that the personal tax imposed upon them by the defendant Sunamgunj Municipal Board under Act, 1 of 1923 (Assam) was illegal and improper and for an injunction restraining the said Board from realising the same. The suits were heard together and disposed of by one judgment and so were the appeals before the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs are different but the defendant in all the suits is the same. The case of the plaintiffs was that they resided outside the Sunamgunj Municipality and served as Government servants in the Sunamgunj Munsif's Court within the municipal area; that the plaintiff in suit No. 2354 was the accountant and the plaintiffs in the other suits were the process-servers of the said Court; that as the plaintiffs were not inhabitants of the Municipality they were not liable for the taxes imposed upon them under the Assam Municipal Act (1 of 1928).

(2.) The defence inter alia was that the plaintiffs by serving in the Munsif's Court within the Municipality were carrying on business there; that, as such, they were inhabitants of the municipal area and liable to assessment under Section 59, Clause (1), Sub-clause (b) of Act 1 of 1923; that the tax had been rightly imposed upon them. The trial Court decreed the suits but the Court of appeal below dismissed them. The plaintiffs thereupon preferred the present appeals.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the appellants that Section 80 and proviso (1) of Section 59 (1) prohibited the imposition of the tax on the plaintiffs as the Munsif's Court, (holding No. 80), had already been taxed and the same was payable by Government; that, in any event, the expression carrying on business did not imply service : Sangster V/s. Kay (1850) 5 Ex 386; that the plaintiff s, therefore, were not inhabitants within the meaning of Section 3, Clause (15) and were not liable to taxation under Section 59, clause (1), Sub-clause (b) of the Act. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that S.80 and proviso (1) to Section 59 had no application; that the expression carrying on business included employment and service for salary: Rolls V/s. Miller (1884) 27 Ch D 71; that the plaintiffs, therefore, were inhabitants within the meaning of Section 8 (15) and were rightly made liable under Section 59 (1) (b), Assam Municipal Act. Now Section 80, Assam Municipal Act, prevents the imposition of a tax on any person in respect of his occupation of any holding in any Municipality in which a tax on inhabitants is already imposed except to this extent that public buildings contained in a holding may be assessed with tax according to a prescribed rate. Similarly, proviso (1) to Section 59 (1) of the Act prohibits the imposition of tax upon the owner of the holding as well as upon the inhabitants, under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 59 (1) in the same ward and in the same time except to this extent that in a ward where tax on inhabitants is in force, public buildings shall be assessed with tax on holdings according to a prescribed scale. No question in the present case arises regarding any tax in respect of occupation or ownership of any holding, and, admittedly, no other tax has been imposed upon the plaintiffs. I do not think, therefore, that Section 80 or proviso (1) to Section 59 (1) has any application or can operate as a bar to the imposition of the present tax. As regards the argument that the plaintiffs were not inhabitants as contemplated by Section 59 (1) (b) of the Act and were, therefore, not liable to taxation, it appears that under Section 59 (1) (b) the Municipal Board is empowered to impose "a tax on inhabitants according to their circumstances and property within the municipal area." The word inhabitant with reference to a local area has been defined in Section 3 (15) as meaning "any person ordinarily residing or carrying on business or occupying immovable property therein."