SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(AP) 286

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR, BASI REDDI, P.JAGMOHAN REDDY
Ramadas Motor Transport Private Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Vijayawada Municipality represented by its Municipal Commissioner - Respondent
Decided On : 12-30-66

Section 93(4) of the District Municipalities Act, which provides relief to individuals from being taxed in full by multiple municipalities, does not apply to companies.

Headnote:

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITIES ACT - PROFESSION TAX - COMPANY - LIABILITY - SECTION 93(4) - INTERPRETATION - COMPANY NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 93(4) - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a transport company with branches in various towns, including two in Vijayawada Municipality, filed a writ petition challenging the municipality's demand for profession tax, claiming that it was liable to pay profession tax only at its head office in Kakinada.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Section 93(4) of the District Municipalities Act, which provides relief to individuals from being taxed in full by multiple municipalities, does not apply to companies. The court found that the provisions of Section 93(4) are specifically tailored to individuals and cannot be extended to companies.

Issues: Whether a company is entitled to relief under Section 93(4) of the District Municipalities Act, which provides relief to individuals from being taxed in full by multiple municipalities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 93(4) of the District Municipalities Act and found that the provisions of the section are specifically tailored to individuals and cannot be extended to companies. The court noted that the section uses the word "person" and pronouns like "he," "who," and "his," which are applicable to a human individual and not to a company. Additionally, the court found that the section does not mention the word "company" or the pronoun "it" to refer to the entity assessable to profession tax.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner company was not entitled to the relief prayed for under Section 93(4) of the District Municipalities Act.

ANANTHANARAYANA AYYAR, J.

( 1 ) THE Writ Petitioner filed this petition praying this Court to call for the records and issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other direction or order directing the respondent-Vijayawada Municipality to forbear from collecting profession tax separately from the petitioner-company in pursuance of assessment No. 7689-A dated 19-7-1962.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Private Limited, is a Transport Company with its Head Office at Kakinada and various branches at in several towns. In particular, it has got one branch at Rajahmundry and two branches within the limits of Vijayawada Municipality.

( 3 ) THE Writ Petition originally came up for hearing before Manohar Pershad, J. (as he then was) who referred it to a Bench. The case then came up before a Division Bench consisting of one of as (H. A A. J.) and Narasimham J. That Division Bench considered an unreported decision of an earlier Division Bench of this Court in Mahalakshmi Butter Co. v. Nagalanka Village Panchayat unreported decision of this Court D/- 28-9-1962 in S. A. No. 989 of 1957 (Andh Pra) regarding Section 65 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 (Madras Act 10 of 1950) which was substantially similar to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh District Municipalities Act, (1920) (Act V of 1920) (hereafter referred to as the Act) concerned in the present Writ Petition and found itself unable to agree with the view expressed in that decision. So, the learned Judges felt it desirable that the matter be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice for being posted before a Full Bench. Accordingly, this Writ Petition has been posted before this Full Bench.

( 4 ) THE important question to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner company has to be assessed to profession tax at only one place as contended by it i. e. , at Kakinada by the Municipality of that place on the entire business done by it including all the branches or whether it is liable to pay profession tax in the Vijayawada Municipality in respect of the business transacted therein, even after paying profession tax to the Kakinada Municipality.

( 5 ) IN these proceedings, we are concerned with the District Municipality Act, 1920 as it stood amended and not with the District Municipalities Act. 1965.

( 6 ) SECTION 93 of the Act runs as follows:--"section 93 (1 ). If the council by a resolution determines that a profession tax shall be levied every company which, after the date specified in the notification published under Section 80, transact business in the municipality for not less than sixty days in the aggregate in any half year; and every person who after the said date in any half-year;. . . . . . . . . . . . (a) exercises a profession, art, or calling or transacts business or holds any appointment sixty days in the aggregate, or (i) within the municipality for not less than sixty days in the aggregate, or (ii) without the municipality but who resides in the municipality for less than sixty days in the aggregate, or (b) resides in the municipality for not less than sixty days in the aggregate and is in receipt of any pension or income from investments shall pay a half-yearly tax assessed in accordance with the rules in Sch. IV. (2) A person shall be chargeable under the class appropriate to his aggregate income from all the sources specified in Subsection (1) as being liable to the tax. (3) If a company or person proves that it or he has paid the sum due on account of the profession tax levied under this Act, or under the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, or any tax of the nature of a profession tax imposed under the Cantonments Act, 1924, for the same half-year to any municipal council or local board or cantonment authority in the Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh such company shall not be liable, by reason merely of change of place of business, exercise of - profession, art or calling, appointment or residence to pay to any other municipal council















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top