Skip to content


Taluk Board Vs. V.S.P. Chockalingam Chetti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad212
AppellantTaluk Board
RespondentV.S.P. Chockalingam Chetti
Excerpt:
- .....decreeing the suit for the return of the amount collected as profession tax from plaintiff by the taluk board of devakottai.2. the contention of mr. ramaswami iyer for the petitioner is that the respondent resides within the limits and therefore is liable under the act. under section 93, local boards act, persons who hold any appointment, public or private, or are in receipt of any pension or income from investments are exempted from paying profession tax. this proviso was evidently overlooked by the taluk board when it assessed the petitioner. the petitioner is only a chetti's agent receiving a salary and is not carrying on any other profession within the local limits of the taluk board of devakottai. he is a resident of palni and mr. sampath aiyangar says that he has paid profession.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. This is an application to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Devakottai decreeing the suit for the return of the amount collected as profession tax from plaintiff by the Taluk Board of Devakottai.

2. The contention of Mr. Ramaswami Iyer for the petitioner is that the respondent resides within the limits and therefore is liable under the Act. Under Section 93, Local Boards Act, persons who hold any appointment, public or private, or are in receipt of any pension or income from investments are exempted from paying profession tax. This proviso was evidently overlooked by the Taluk Board when it assessed the petitioner. The petitioner is only a Chetti's agent receiving a salary and is not carrying on any other profession within the local limits of the Taluk Board of Devakottai. He is a resident of Palni and Mr. Sampath Aiyangar says that he has paid profession tax in Palni as he is liable under the District Municipalities Act to pay profession tax even though he is in receipt of only a salary. Whether he paid profession tax to the Palni Municipality or not is beside the point. The only question is whether the plaintiff comes within the proviso to Section 93. As he is holding only a salaried appointment he is not liable to profession tax under Section 93, Local Boards Act.

3. I dismiss the Civil Revision Petition, with costs.


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