A person carrying on business within the limits of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, regardless of whether they have a place of business or a legal title to it, is entitled to a certificate of enlistment under Section 200 and is liable to pay tax under Section 199 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1980.

1. WE regret our inability to agree with the learned trial Judge and our consequential inability to sustain the order under appeal.

2. "BUSINESS-' is a word Of protean significance and the expression "BUSINESS man" as used in Serial to. 8, No. 44 or No. 84 of Schedule TV of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1980 would include a person engaged in any profession, trade or other commercial activities.

The petitioner professes to carry on the BUSINESS of a motor-mechanic. The learned Judge has not he Id that the petitioner does not carry on any such BUSINESS he has only disbelieved the case of the petitioner that he carries on BUSINESS at the disputed premises and that he is a tenant in respect of his place of BUSINESS. To quote the learned judge (from paragraph 19 of the judgment), "the petitioner has hopelessly failed to establish his tenancy right in the portion of the premises in question" or to prove that "the petitioner was carrying on his motor car repairing BUSINESS at this very premises or he merely used to receive the communications at this address and carry out the orders at some other place."

3. AS would appear from the relevant entries in Schedule iv, even if a person is carrying on the business without any place of business he would still be liable to be taxed under Serial No. 84 of Schedule IV, but if he is carrying on that business at a place,, whether as an owner or tenant or otherwise, he would have been liable to pay higher taxes under Serial No. 8 or No. 44. A businessman, whether Aniketa, i.e., without a place, or Saniketa, i. e., with a place, of business, is liable to be taxed under Section 199 and entitled to a certificate of enlistment under Section 200 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, l980. Such certificate and payment of tax only entitle the certificate- holder-cum-tax-payer with a licence to carry on trade or business which may or may not have any relation to or connection with any place or site.

4. THE learned trial Judge has considered with anxious advertence the question as to whether the appellant writ-petitioner has been able to establish his right to the place where he professes* to carry on the business and has held that the appellant has failed to do so. But assuming, though not deciding, it to be so arguendo, that, by itself, cannot deprive the petitioner of his right to a certificate of enlistment under Section 200 nor absolve him of his liability to pay tax under Section 199, if the petitioner is otherwise carrying on. business whether at any place with or without any right therein or at no particular place.

Reliance was placed before the learned trial Judge on a decision of our learned brother Susanta Chatterjee, J. in Venode Kumar Jalan vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation (1987-1 Calcutta Law Times 333), but we have not been able to appreciate the process of reasoning by cohich the learned trial Judge has endeavoured to distinguish the same. Chatterjee, J. has clearly ruled in that decision that the failure of a person to make out his right or title to the place where he professes or intends to carry on business can be no ground to deny him certificate of enlistment under Section' 200. We find good reasons to agree with respect with the ratio of the decision spelt out by Chatterjee, J in some details with appreciable clarity. As we have already indicated, we are of the view, place or no place, if one is a businessman carrying on business within the Limits' of Calcutta Municipal corporation, he acquires a right to a certificate of enlistment under Section 200 and incurs a liability to pay tax and the Corporation has no right, to refuse the, certificate or the tax. The learned trial Judge has nowhere held that the petitioner does not carry on the business of motor-repair and all that he has held is that: the petitioner has failed to prove that he does so at the premises in question.

5. ASSUMING, but not deciding, that the petitioner does not do so, he is then not required to take out any licenc