The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'incorporated company' under Section 110 of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1919, in the absence of a specific definition. The Court emphasized the ordinary meaning of 'company' and the strict construction of taxing sections in reaching its decision.

Reilly, J.

1. These cases refer to two Banks which have been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, namely," the Madras Central Urban Bank, Limited, and the Madras City Co-operative Bank, Limited, both of which carry on their operations in Madras. The Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras demanded profession tax from these two Banks tinder Section 111 of the Madras City Municipal Act of 1919. Under that section only persons who are not liable to companies tax under Section 110 of the Act are liable to profession tax. Both the Banks objected to the Commissioners demands, at that stage apparently maintaining that they were liable neither to profession tax nor to companies tax. They appealed to the Standing Committee of the Corporation, which rejected their appeals. Then, under Rule 15 of SchIV of the City Municipal Act they appealed to the Court of Small Causes and at that stage contended that, if they were liable to be taxed at all, it was under Section 110 of the Act to companies tax, not to profession tax. The learned Chief judge, who heard those appeals, found that the two Banks were liable to pay companies tax under Section 110 but not profession tax under Section 111 and therefore allowed the Banks appeals. After that decision had been given, the Corporation applied to the learned judge under Rule 17 of Schedule IV of the Act praying him to state a case to this Court; and the learned Judge has therefore referred to this Court the question "whether the appellant Banks are liable for profession tax under Section 111 of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1919.

2. Under Section 110 of the Madras City Municipal Act it is only incorporated companies that are liable to companies tax. These two Banks, with which we are concerned, have been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and consequently under that Act have become bodies corporate. It cannot be denied, and is not denied, that they are incorporated bodies. But Mr. Rajamanikkam for the Corporation of Madras contends that these Banks are not incorporated companies within the meaning of Section 110. It happens that there is no definition of "company" in the Madras City Municipal Act, and, in the absence of such a definition, Mr. Rajamanikkam asks us to apply the definition of "company" in the Madras District Municipalities Act of 1920. He urges that the Madras District Municipalities Act was made only a few months after the City Municipal Act: the two Acts were made by the same Legislature: they both deal with the constitution, organisation, duties and powers of Municipal bodies: they both introduced a new form of tax called companies tax. Though the Madras District Municipalities Act was made later than the, Madras City Municipal Act, Mr. Rajamanikkam urges that it may be considered to be in pari materia and that in the circumstances, in the absence of any definition of "company" in the Madras City Municipal Act, we may legitimately use the definition of "company" in the Madras District Municipalities Act, which 1 may mention would exclude these particular Banks registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The question in what exceptional circumstances and to what extent the definition of a word in a subsequent Act may be used in the interpretation of that word in an earlier Act is a very difficult one. But fortunately I do not think it necessary for us to discuss that question on this occasion. It has been pointed out by Mr. Subbaroya Aiyar, who appears for one of the Banks, that the definition of "company" in the Madras District Municipalities Act, on which Mr. Rajamanikkam relies, was not introduced for the first time in regard to District Municipalities in the Act of 1920. The very same definition of "company" was in the Madras District Municipalities Act of 1884. His contention therefore is that the provincial Legislature had for purposes of District Municipalities defined the word "company" in 1884; when the City Municipal Act was madein 1919