( 1 ) THE petitioners ate directors of Companies registered under the Companies act, 1956. They challenge the validity of the " Profession tax " levied on them under the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments act, 1976 (Kar. Act No. 35 of 1976) which we will hereinafter refer to as "the Act".

( 2 ) THE Act is to provide for the levy and collection of tax on professions, trades, callings and employments in the State of Karnataka. The Act by S. 3 charges every person who exercises any profession or calling or is engaged in any trade or holds any appointment, public or private, or is employed in any manner in the State, specified in the second column of the Schedule, to pay taxes at the rate mentioned in the corresponding entry in the third column of the said schedule.

( 3 ) AS per the said entry, the petitioners being the Directors, are liable to pay and were also called upon to pay Rs. 250 per annum as profession tax.

( 4 ) A few more facts may require recapitulation for purposes of properly apprehending the tr. e scope of the controversy: The Company of which the petitioners in W. P. No. 4600 of 1978 are directors, is called "balanoor Tea and rubber Company Ltd. " It is having its registered Office in the State of karnataka. But all the petitioners reside outside the State. As per the Articles of association of the Company, the Directors are paid sitting fees of Rs. 250 whenever they attend a meeting of the Board of Directors.

( 5 ) THE petitioners in W. P. No. 10084 of 1977 are directors of a Company called, "bellary Brucepettah Hindu Mutual Benefit Permanent Fund Ltd. " the registered office of the company is in the State of Karnataka and the petitioners are also permanent residents in the State. They get a nominal sum of rs. 6 as sitting fees if they attend a board meeting which ordinarily meets four or five times in a year. Each one of them has been called upon to pay the profession tax of Rs. 250 per annum. It may also be relevant to state that these petitioners are not employed in any manner by the Company.

( 6 ) THE primary contention urged for the petitioners is that they as directors are not exercising any profession, calling or are engaged in any trade or hold any appointment, public or private in the State of Karnataka, and the entry 6 by which they are made liable to pay the profession tax is therefore illegal and beyond the scope of the Act. This contention must, necessarily be examined having regard to the scope of the Act and sweep of the legislative entry. The basic requirement for the levy of tax under the Act is that one must be engaged in some profession, trade, calling or employment in the State. The relevant entry in the legislative lists conferring taxing power on the State under which alone the impugned levy could be supported is Entry 60 in the State List in the seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It reads : " 60, Taxes on Professions, trades, callings and employments. " the taxes specified in the above Entry as stated by the Supreme Court in Rajagopalacliari v. Corporal ion of Madras, A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1172 at 1178 are taxes on the carrying on a profession, trade, calling and employment, and that therefore, the tax under the Act could be imposed if a person in fact carries on a profession etc. Art, 276 while prescribing a limitation on this power to tax further confirms this view.

( 7 ) THE Act does not define the words "profession, trade or calling". In the absence of any such definition, we may look into the dictionary meaning. The word "profession" is described in Jowitt's-Dictionary of English Law, 2nd edn. Vol. 2 at page 1442 as follows; "calling vocation, known employment. " it thus appears to be wide in its conception, The meaning of the word "calling" as given by Webster's - unabridged (New) Twentieth Century dictionary, page 257 is : "a vocation, profession, trade or occupation. " it is again very wide ; and means practically to include one's u