Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. The respondent is a retired Subordinate Judge. He retired from service on 6th September, 1930, on a pension. Under the Madras District Municipalities Act he was liable to pay profession tax to the Petitioner, the Municipal Council, Salem, half-yearly. In 1931 he commuted a portion of his pension, viz., Rs. 150 a month for a lump sum of Rs. 17,820. The Petitioner levied profession tax on that sum in addition to the tax payable on the uncommuted pension treating it as a receipt of pension. The Respondent refused to pay the tax in respect of that sum, but later on paid it under protest and sued the Petitioner in the District Munsif s Court for a refund of the tax paid. The District Munsif gave a decree in favour of the Respondent here holding that the sum received in lieu of the portion of his pension when it was commuted was no longer pension and therefore was not taxable under the Act. With this view we entirely agree. Pension has been defined in The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Khemchand Jeychand I.L.R. (1880) 4 Bom. 432 as "a periodical allowance or stipend for past services"; in Lachmi Narain v. Makund Singh I.L.R. (1