JUDGMENT

Mootham, C.J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which raises the question whether the salary received by a Government servant can be taken into account in determining his total taxable income for the purpose of assessment to circumstances and property tax under the District Boards Act.

2. The petitioner is a Tahsildar and Assistant Collector of the second class who has been posted, since March 1955, at Ram-sanehighat in the district of Barabanki. The District Board of Barabanki assessed the petitioner to circumstances and property tax on the ground that he resided in the district, and on the 22nd December, 1956, it served on him a notice requiring him to pay a sum of Rs. 45-15-0 as such tax in respect of the year ending the 31st March, 1957. The petitioner contends that his salary cannot be taken into account in determining his liability to pay this tax, and in the petition which is now before me he prays that the notice of demand served on him be quashed.

Sec. 114 of the District Boards Act, so far as it is relevant, reads thus :

"Imposition of tax on circumstances and property. The power of a board to impose a tax on circumstances and property shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions, namely,-

(a) the tax may be imposed on any person residing or carrying on business in the rural area, provided that such person has so resided or carried on business for a total period of at least six months in the year under assessment;....................

Explanation.- ...................

The words "carrying on business" do not apply to service under the Government or a local body."

3. The last sentence was added to the section by U. P. Act XVI of 1934. The argument for the petitioner is that this sentence means that the salary of the person in the service of Government or a local body is to be disregarded in determining that person's taxable income for the purposes of assessment of circumstances and property tax.

4. Now it is not in dispute that had the petitioner been in the receipt of income from other sources in addition to his salary that additional income could properly be taken into account in determining his liability to pay the tax, and there can be no doubt that were it not for the final sentence of this section the petitioner would be liable to pay circumstances and property tax on his total taxable income on the ground that he was residing in the rural area. The question is therefore whether the sentence. "The words 'carrying on business' do not apply to service under the Government or a local body" has the meaning attributed to it by the petitioner. It is argued that unless these words are so construed as to exclude his salary being taken into account in determining his taxable income the final sentence would have no meaning. I do not think that this is so. Liability to this tax is founded either on residence or the carrying on of business within the rural area, and the only meaning that I think can properly be attributed to the sentence is that a servant of Government or of a local body cannot be made liable to tax on the ground that he carries on business. It does not, in my opinion, exclude his liability on the alternative basis, namely residence.

5. It is certainly difficult to understand precisely what purpose was intended to be served by the addition of this sentence to the section in 1934. In Gauri Shanker Verma v. Municipal Board, Sitapur, A.I.R. 1933 Oudh, 91 a Full Bench of the Oudh Chief Court had to consider whether the applicant could be assessed by a Municipal Board to circumstances and property tax under cl. (ix) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 128 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. That sub-section empowers a Municipal Board to impose a tax on "inhabitants" assessed to their circumstances and property, and the word "inhabitant" is defined in Sec. 2, cl. (vii) of the Act with reference to a local area as meaning "any person ordinarily residing or carrying on business o