The main legal point established is that the pursuit of agriculture is considered the exercise of a calling, making a person engaged in agricultural operations liable to profession tax under S.69 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960.

1. The sole question for determination in this petition is whether a person who is engaged in agricultural operations is liable to profession tax under S.69 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. It is common ground that he will be liable to taxation under that section only if he can be considered to be a person who "exercises a profession, art of calling".

2. The question is important, and the petition has been referred to a Division Bench for decision. The order of reference by Nambiyar J. reads as follows:

"The question raised in this O. P. is whether the pursuit of agriculture can be said to be the exercise of a profession, art or calling or the transaction of business within the meaning of S.69 (1) (ii) (a) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. The petitioner's counsel relied on the decision reported in (1966) I MLJ. 84 and contended that the pursuit of agriculture will not fall within any of these categories. The learned Government Pleader relied on the connotation to be given to the term'calling' as expounded in the decision in P. Krishna Menon v. Commissioner of Income-tax (AIR. 1957 T. C. 290) and the

English decision in Partridge v. Mallandaine (18 QBD. 276) referred to therein. As the question raised is important and far reaching, I adjourn the hearing of this O. P. to a Division Bench."

3. According to the learned Government Pleader the pursuit of agriculture is nothing else than the pursuit of a calling and the petitioner is liable to profession tax under S.69 of the Act. We are inclined to agree with him.

4. Agriculture connotes the raising of useful or valuable products which derive nutriment from the soil. Webster calls it the "science or art of cultivating the ground". The employment of human skill and labour is its distinguishing feature, and an agriculturist is he who by himself or by his servants earns his livelihood, wholly or principally, by the pursuit of agriculture. There is no reason to hold that the pursuit of such an avocation is not the pursuit of a calling.

5. In State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR. 1960 SC. 610, the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the meaning of the word "calling" in S.2 0) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court said that the word "calling" is a word of very wide import and that it means "one's usual occupation, vocation, business or trade".

6. In Sankaranarayana Pillai v. Executive Officer (1966) I MLJ. 84, the Madras High Court held that the pursuit of agriculture will not come under S.121 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1959, which provides for the levy of a profession tax on every person who "exercises a profession, art or calling or transacts business or holds any appointment public or private". The Court said:

"Can it be said that agriculture is a calling? It may be that agriculture is an occupation in a certain sense, but not, in our opinion, a profession or calling. While saying this, we are having in mind the basic sense in which'agriculture' is used, namely, cultivation of the soil."

We must say, with respect, that we cannot agree to the conclusion that the pursuit of agriculture is not the exercise of a calling.

7. Item 46 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, and item 60 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India reads as follows:

"Taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments."

In Waliati Ram v. Rupar Municipality, AIR. 1960 Punjab 669, the Punjab High Court dealt with those words as follows:

"It is very difficult to hold that the framers of the Constitution while using the words were using them as terms of art. The object of the entry is to enable the State Legislature to tax persons, who are carrying or any professions trades, callings and employments. The words underscored above have not any definitive meaning distinct from that of the other. These four words do not seem to be used in a mutually exclusive sense. These word? overlap one another and appear to have been used by way o