1. This case seems to be directly covered by the decision of Deva-doss, J., in Municipal Council Rajahmundry v. Prasarayadu 1926 Mad 800, where he stated that when a Municipal Council proposes to levy a tax it must make the people understand at what rate it is going to collect the tax and should not simply say it is going to collect the tax as provided for by the District Municipalities Act in Schedule 4 or anything of the kind. Though the question arises in this case under the Madras Local Boards Act (14 of 1920), the principle is the same. In the present case the District Board passed a resolution to levy company tax and subsequently issued a notification stating that company tax would be levied 'at the rate specified in Schedule 4 of the Act.' The point taken in the lower Court was that the notification was not a sufficient compliance with Section 77 of the Act which provides that when the District Board shall have determined in accordance with the provisions of Sections 75 and 76 to levy any tax or toll the President of such Board shall at once publish a notification in the prescribed manner specifying the rate at which and the local limits of the itrea in which such tax or toll is to be levied. In the case in Municipal Council Rajahmundry v. Prasarayadu 1926 Mad 800, what was done was to publish a notification to the following effect:
This (i.e. profession) tax will be levied at j the maximum rates in Schdule 4, District Municipalities Act, (5 of 1920).
2. Devadoss, J., held that that was not a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Act. I think, agreeing with him, that people upon whom the tax is about to be levied should be enabled from the notification itself to understand what the tax is and its rate and that [they should not be driven to look into the schedule of the Act in order to gain that information. In my view, there was not a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 77 of the Act and, following the decision in Municipal Council Rajahmundry v. Prasarayadu 1926 Mad 800 this C.R.P. must be dismissed with costs.