A L V R P VEERAPPA CHETTIAR REPRESENTED BY HIS AUTHORISED AGENT M V SOMANATHA AIYAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for the revision of the decree of the Lower Court in a Small Cause suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant, the Municipal Council of Palni, the amount of profession tax levied on him by the Council for the half-year ending 31 March 1922. The facts appear to be as follows : The plaintiff is a Nattukottai Chetti, whose profession is money lending and he exercises that profession at Devakottah. He has purchased the Zamindari of Rattiampadi in the Palni Taluq. This Zamin is situated wholly outside the limits of the Palni Municipality. The plaintiff maintains in the Palni town a resident collection agent who collects his Zamin's rent for him. In these circumstances the Lower Court has held that the plaintiff has through his agent been in receipt of income within the Municipality and is therefore liable to be taxed for profession tax.

(2.) The legal correctness of this decision depends, on the interpretation of Secs.93 and 95 of the Madras District Municipalities Act. It is contended for the petitioner that he or his agent is not a person in receipt of income from" any source other than houses or lands inside the Municipal limits, "and it is sought to make the words" inside the Municipal limits "qualify" source " and not "houses and. lands." This view is untenable. There is no reason whatever why a person residing within the Municipality and drawing income from rent of houses outside it should not pay profession tax as he obtains the benefit of Municipal activities in the same manner as any other resident. The phrase is clearly used in order to exempt a person from paying profession tax on rent from property inside the Municipality, since he is already taxed on that under Section 81.

(3.) We cannot say that the petitioner is not in receipt of this income. lie admits that his agent collects it and remits it to him. He is therefore prima facie liable under Section 93 if he has been in receipt of that income within the Municipality for the period laid down in Section 95. Section 95 lays down that, though a person may be liable for the tax under Section 93 it is not payable unless he resides in the Municipality for sixty days in the half-year in question. This proposition is not affected by the principle laid down in illustration (3) of Section 93, because Section 93 is only laying down the qualification for liability to tax and has nothing to do with the conditions under which the tax becomes payable. That is dealt with under Section 95. This point has been overlooked by the Lower Court and it has thus fallen into an error.