Skip to content


Municipal Council of Tellicherry Vs. Bank of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR15Mad153
AppellantMunicipal Council of Tellicherry
RespondentBank of Madras
Excerpt:
district municipalities act - act iv of 1884 (madras), sections 55, 56, 60, 262, clause(2)--profession tax. - .....1884, and section 55 operates to exempt a person who has exercised his profession for less than 60 days in the half-year. section 55 therefore indicates a ground on which a person may, if he wishes, claim exemption from liability and also gives him the privilege of paying the tax in two instalments. it is not the petitioner's case that the madras bank ceased to carry on business at negapatam before the expiry of 60 days, nor do we think that payment, three days before the expiration of that time, can be treated as made otherwise than in discharge of the liability for the second half-year.2. the next contention is that each branch bank ought to be treated as a distinct person--but there is only one corporation, and the bank carries on its business through agents in different.....
Judgment:

1. The first objection taken is that the profession tax was paid in Negapatam three days before it fell due and therefore was not paid in discharge of a legal obligation; hence that plaintiff is liable to the tax at Tellicherry, the payment at Negapatam having been voluntary. The liability to pay is created by Section 53, Madras Act IV of 1884, and Section 55 operates to exempt a person who has exercised his profession for less than 60 days in the half-year. Section 55 therefore indicates a ground on which a person may, if he wishes, claim exemption from liability and also gives him the privilege of paying the tax in two instalments. It is not the petitioner's case that the Madras Bank ceased to carry on business at Negapatam before the expiry of 60 days, nor do we think that payment, three days before the expiration of that time, can be treated as made otherwise than in discharge of the liability for the second half-year.

2. The next contention is that each Branch Bank ought to be treated as a distinct person--but there is only one corporation, and the Bank carries on its business through agents in different municipalities. Having regard to the definition in Clause xxix, Section 3, of the Act, we cannot hold that the Madras Bank is not a single person within the meaning of the Act.

3. Section 60 precludes the supposition that the same person carrying on business by agents in differnt municipalities is liable to pay the profession tax in each municipality for the same half-year.

4. Section 59 is not applicable, as the person, i.e., the Bank, does not carry on more than one class of business, and even if it did it would not be liable to pay more than one tax, though the class under which it was to be taxed might be determined by the aggregate income.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //