Dixit, C. J.-

1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, challenges the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Finance Act, 1938, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and seeks writs of certiorari for quashing four notices of demand asking him to pay Rs. 41.67, Rs. 100, Rs. 50 and again Rs. 50 as 'profession' tax for the years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1961-62 and 1962-63 respectively.

2. Shri Choudhari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while assailing the validity of the Act. submitted that the Act merely levied a profession-tax at the rates specified in the Schedule to the Act for each financial year on persons falling in the category mentioned in section 3 of the Act; that it did not contain any provision for determination and assessment of the tax; and that it did not provide for the lodging and hearing of objections by persons held to be liable to tax under section 3 and did not also contain any provision with regard to appeals against the orders of assessment. Learned counsel mainly relied on the observations of the Supreme Court contained in paragraph 9 of the majority judgment in K. T. Moopil Nair Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1961 SC 552.

3. This application is totally devoid of any substance and must be dismissed. The argument of the learned counsel attacking the validity of the Act is based on a misconception of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder intituted "Central Provinces and Berar Profession, Trade. Calling and Employment Taxation Rules, 1942", (hereinafter called the Rules). Section 3 is the charging section. It makes every person who carries on trade, either by himself or by an agent, or who follows a profession or calling, or who is in employment, liable to pay in each financial year a tax at the rate specified in the Schedule if the income of the person has been assessed to income-tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, According to the Schedule, the tax payable is Rs. 100 where the total income is Rs. 15,000 or above; it is Rs. 50 when the total income is Rs. 10,000 or above, and Rs. 28 where the total income is less than Rs. 10,000. Section 7 lays dawn—

"7. (1) Any officer empowered by the State Government to determine the liability of a person to pay the tax under this Act may, by written notice, require any person to attend before him and to give evidence or produce documents, as the case may be, for the purpose of determining any-person's liability to taxation under Sec. 3.

(2) *** *** ***

It will be seen that section 7(1) indicates the authority competent to determine the liability of a person to pay tax under the Act and the procedure to be followed for determination of the liability. The argument, therefore, that the Act does not contain any provision for assessment and determination of tax is without any foundation.

4. Now, when we turn to the Rules, framed under the Act and which are a part of the Act itself, we find provisions for the lodging and hearing of objections preferred by a person held liable to tax under section 3 of the Act. The material rules are rules 4, 6 and 7. Rule 4 provides that at the commencement of each financial year or at any time during the currency of the financial year, the taxing officer shall, for the area under his jurisdiction, determine the persons who are liable to pay the tax under section 3 (1) of the Act, and shall cause to be prepared a list of such persons in the prescribed form. "Taxing Officer" has been defined by rule 2 (e) as meaning an officer empowered by an order of the State Government to determine the liability of persons to pay the tax for the area specified in the order. The list prepared under rule 4 has to be authenticated by the taxing officer as provided by rule 6. Rule 7 (1) enjoins that after autheraicating the list under rule 6 (1) the taxing officer shall cause to be served on e