Skip to content


P.S.K. Hajee Sheik Meera Rowther Vs. the President of the Corporation of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.744
AppellantP.S.K. Hajee Sheik Meera Rowther
RespondentThe President of the Corporation of Madras
Cases Referred and Lovell and Christmas Limited v. Commissioner of Taxes
Excerpt:
madras city municipal act (iii of 1904), section 120 - profession fax--saying agent. - .....sells the goods and earns his profit, can be said to carry on the trade here because he buys his goods at madras through a servant who forwards them to tinnevelly. he has no office here, and the servant who buys the goods, so far as it appears merely carries out his orders. ~no doubt in certain kinds of business the buying of the goods may be the most important and difficult part of the business and it is not a conclusive test in such cases that profits are earned elsewhere. there can be no doubt, however, on the facts of this case that the appellant carries on his trade in tinnevelly and not in madras. in holding this we follow the principle laid down in sulley v. the attorney general 5 h. & n. 711 sen panlo brazilian railway co. limited v. garter (1885) 1 q.w. 580 and lovell and.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the question is whether the appellant exercises his trade in the town of Madras within the meaning of Section 120 of the Madras City Municipal Act, III of 1904. Under that section a man is not liable to pay any profession tax if he carries on a trade elsewhere, but only does some act in Madras incidental to the exercise of such trade. On the other hand it is not necessary that all the acts incident to the carrying on of his trade should be done in Madras to make him liable under Section 120. The question, therefore, is whether the appellant who is a trader in piece goods and has a shop in Tinnevelly where he sells the goods and earns his profit, can be said to carry on the trade here because he buys his goods at Madras through a servant who forwards them to Tinnevelly. He has no office here, and the servant who buys the goods, so far as it appears merely carries out his orders. ~No doubt in certain kinds of business the buying of the goods may be the most important and difficult part of the business and it is not a conclusive test in such cases that profits are earned elsewhere. There can be no doubt, however, on the facts of this case that the appellant carries on his trade in Tinnevelly and not in Madras. In holding this we follow the principle laid down in Sulley v. The Attorney General 5 H. & N. 711 Sen Panlo Brazilian Railway Co. Limited v. Garter (1885) 1 Q.W. 580 and Lovell and Christmas Limited v. Commissioner of Taxes (1908) A.C. 46. The answer to the reference will, therefore, be that the appellant is not liable to be taxed under Section 120 of the Municipal Act.


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