(1.) The question in this case is whether the plaintiff who owns an arrack distillery at Bellary can be said to have transacted business at Adoni, where he keeps a depot for distribution of his liquor, and incurred liability to pay profession-tax to the Adoni Municipality. The facts are well settled. The plaintiff is a licensed distiller. By the terms of his licence he manufactures liquor for distribution at certain specified depots at a price fixed by the Excise Department on a calculation of costs of production plus a reasonable profit. The depot at Adoni exists only to supply arrack for cash to licensed vendors. The depot-keeper has no authority to supply on credit. He issues liquor in return for cash which he has to deposit in the treasury subject to certain authorised deductions for standing expenses. He keeps no account except a stock book and the general control of the business apart from the daily sales is entirely exercised in Bellary. It is also established that in fact the Adoni sales have not been taken into account in assessing profession-tax at Bellary. Now on these facts, can it be said that the plaintiff transacts business through his agent at Adoni or should it be held that the transaction of the business is at Bellary and that the agent at Adoni is nothing more than a mere distributor and store-keeper.
(2.) Section 93 of the Madras District Municipalities Act does not itself define the term transacts business . But Section 94-A says that: If a company or person employs a servant or agent to represent it or him for the purpose of transacting business in a Municipality, such company or person shall be deemed to transact business within the Municipality.
(3.) And Rule 17 of Schedule IV to the Act says that: The company or person shall be deemed to have transacted business and the person shall be deemed to have exercised a profession, art or calling or held an appointment in the Municipality if such company or person has an office or place of employment within such municipality.