PENA RINA YENA MANICKAVASAGAM CHETTIAR Vs. UNION BOARD OF DEVAKOTTAH, THROUGH ITS PRISIDENT ORMSM MANICKAVASAGAM CHETTIAR ALIAS SEVUGAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case two second appeals were originally filed. It is obvious that the matter involved was of a small cause nature and therefore the appeals do not lie. Two applications were filed to convert the appeals into civil revision petitions which were allowed.

(2.) THE question involved is as to the collection of profession-tax from the petitioner by the respondent, the Union Board of Devakottah. THE petitioner lives within the area of the Union Board, but carries on a money-lending business at Madras, Mannargudi and Nellore. His contention is that, as he has already paid the profession-tax on the income from his business in those places, he is not liable to pay again on it at his place of residence. He pleads, in fact, that income cannot be received as income twice over. That is a contention we have rejected in our judgment in Perianan Chetti V/s. Taluk Board, Devakotta (1932) I.L.R. 55 Mad. 848 : 63 M.L.J. 148, We reject it again for the reasons given in our judgment in that case. His next contention is that it is contrary to the policy of the Local Boards Act to tax a man twice over on his income from the same business. That contention we cannot accept. THE relevant section of the Act of 1920 is Section 93. THE petitioner is a person " who, within such area. is in receipt of an income from money-lending or any source other than houses and lands inside the local limits of the area". As regards double taxation all that the Act indicates is that an income derived from a source otherwise taxable within the area must not be taxed there twice. If the assessee derives an income from houses and lands within that area, that is otherwise taxable within the area and must not be taxed again. But let his lands and houses be outside the area and it is obvious that his income from them, if it reaches Devakottah, will be taxable there under Section 93 whether it has been taxed elsewhere or not. THE only cases in which double taxation is not allowed are specified in Sub-section (3) and the petitioner's is not one of those cases. Under the present Act - the Act of 1930 - the exceptions are much wider and the petitioner would not be taxable at all at Devakottah. In the result, we must dismiss the civil revision petitions with costs, on the finding that the petitioner is taxable. No question as to the amount of the tax was argued before us.