Profession tax cannot be levied on person doing agriculture.

This Revision Case, in the first instance, came before Natesan, J., who, on the view that an important question of law arises, considered that it should be decided by a Division Bench. That is how it comes before us.

The petitioner was convicted under rule 26 (2) read with rule 33 (1) of the Rules framed by the State Government in exercise of the power vested in them by section 178 (xxii) of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958. This was on the ground that he was doing agriculture, and that he was liable to pay profession tax in respect of it, under section 119 read with section 121 of that Act. The Court below was of the view that ‘agriculture ‘would fall within the purview of the term ‘calling ‘in section 121. It did not precisely find as to the particular activity the petitioner was engaged in, which could be described as an agricultural operation, so as to view it as a profession.

Section 119(1) confers power on a village panchayat to levy, inter alia, a profession tax, and section 121 provides for the manner of and procedure for levy and collection of profession tax. It is a half-yearly tax and is payable by every company or person who during the half year transacts business or exercises a profession art or calling within a specified period within that half year. Section 121(1)(ii) says that

"the profession tax shall..........be levied every half-year........on every person, who in that halt-year (a) exercises a profession, art or calling or transacts business or holds any appointment public or private...... "

Section 178 contains the rule-making power of the Government and clause (xxii) enables the Government to frame Rules, as to the realisation of any tax or other sum due to a panchayat under the Act whether by distraint and sale of movable property, by prosecution before a Magistrate, by a suit, or otherwise. Rule 26 framed in the exercise of that power provides for distraint and sale of movable property, and sub-rule (2) says that, if sufficient distraint of the defaulter’s property is impracticable, the executive authority may prosecute the defaulter before a Magistrate. Rule 33 enables the imposition of fine in such a prosecution under rule 26 (2). Sub-rule (1) states that, on proof to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that a person wilfully omitted to pay the amount due by him as tax, he shall be liable to pay a fine not exceeding twice the amount due from him as tax.

The question we are called upon to answer, with reference to these statutory provisions and Rules, is whether profession tax, can be levied on agriculture pure and simple. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that, as records stand at the moment the facts relating to the nature of the activity the petitioner is engaged in are not available and that the question we have set out for our consideration may therefore, appear to be too broad. There is force in his submission. Nobody seems to have suggested before the Court below that it must investigate into the relevant facts constituting the activity of the petitioner which may be described as agriculture and which may be regarded also as a profession.

‘Profession, ‘as defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, means among other things, vocation, calling, especially one that involves some branch of learning or science, as the learned profession (divinity, law, medicine). A profession is normally associated with the exercise of intellectual or technical equipment resulting from learning or science. In that sense, agricultue by which is meant cultivation of the soil may not be a profession. There is nothing to profess in the activity of agriculture. Agriculture means physical labour and toil expended on the land with a view to extract the produce springing from it. There may be a variety of activities which may well be styled as agriculture; but there may be many other activities which fall off the line of agriculture and may well amount to a profession. Whether it is the one or the other will depend o