# MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE v. MANlLAL (Sikri, /.)

- **Citation:** [1967] 2 S.C.R. 100
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-11-17
- **Bench:** K. Subba Rao, J. c. SHAH, s. M. Suw, v. RAMASWAMI, c. A. v AJDIALINGAM
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/municipal-committee-v-manllal-sikri-3961
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitu;ioa.._of India, Article 276-Municlpal tax« /evitd hy two
notifications under t~ Berar Municipal Law, 1886,-after its repeal notf.
fications continued hr opeTation by saving
Clause in C.P. Municipil/itill
Act, 1922-which was later amended and re-named C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922-Cetrtral ProfeSlion Tax Limitation Act, 1941 limitinl
municipal taxes-s. 3 read with item 4 of Schedule saving tta!s levied
under C.P. ,\1unicipalities Act, 1922-Whether taxes under -two notific•
tio11.s saved and in force at co1nmencemenl of Constitutio~r whethu
hit hy Art. 276(2).
The appellant Municipality which was constituted and empowered lo
impose certain taxes under the Berar Municipal Law, 1886, by one notification in 1899 imposed a tax on professions and trades practised in the
Municipality; and by another issued in 1908, imposed a tax on the ginning
and pressing of cotton.
The Berar Municipal Law was repealed in 1924 and in its place the
C.P.
Municipalitie, Act (II of 1922), with certain modifications,
WM
applied to Berar.
By virtue of a saving provision ins. 66(6) of lhc Act,
any 'axes previously imposed by a Municipality continued in opt;ration
even if they were not specified in the Act.
After Berar became a pan of
British India, by the Berar Laws (Provincial) Act (XV of 1941 ), which
came into force on August I, 1941 and which was passed by the Governor
of the Central Provinces and Berar under s. 93 of the Government
of
India Act, 1935, various acts including the C.P. Municipalit:es Act. 1922,
\\'CfC amended and ex'ended to Berar. The title of Ac1 11 of 1922 be>
came the Central Provinces and Berar
Municipalities Act,
1922,
and
:dtho1Jgh the Act as pre.viou1;Jy applied to Bcrar was to cease to have effect.
notifications etc. deemed to have
been made or issued under the C.P.
\funicipalities Act, 1922 were saved.
In the meantime, by the Profession Tax Limitation Act (XX of 1941),
passed by the Central Assembly. which came into force on April I, 1941,
taxes payable to a Municipality were restricted by s. 2 of :he Act in re'pect
of any one periOn to Rs. 50
per annum.
However, by s. 3 read with
ilem 4 of the Schedule to the Act. any tax levied by a Municioality in
'"'pect of any profession, trade. calling etc. imposed under s. 66(1 )(b)
oi the C.P. Municipalities Act. 1922, was exempted from the restricti09
contained in s. Z.
The respondents filed writ petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 challen~
inR certain demands made on thrm by the Municipal C'..ommittee. Akot. in
rosnect of tax levied under rhe two notification, of 1899 and 1908.
It
was contended by them that in view of An. 276, the notification• under
\\''hich the tax was imooscd could not be enforced except to the txteot
Provided under Art. 276(2) of the Constitution. The case of the Municipal Committee
was that the notifications
were in force
immcdiatefy
before the commencement of the Constitution and therefore were not bit
by Art. 276(2). The High Court rejected thi• contention and allowed
the petilion.
A.
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE V. MANlLAL (Sikri, /.)
IOI
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant
committee that item 4 in the Schedule to Act XX of 1941 covered the impugned lax because the Act. was the same under which the tax ~":' being
imposed and recovered and the fact that the title of the C.P. Mu01c1palit1es
Act, 1922, was changed by the Berar Laws (Provincial) Act, 1941, did
mt make any difference; that if a tax was deemed to be imposed under
the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, it was still a rax imposed
11Dder s. 66(1) of the C.P. Municipalities Act, 1922; and that it was a
case of mis.description that the word Berar had not been mentioned in
item 4 of the Schedule.
HELD : Dismissing the appeal :
Item 4 in the Schedule to Act XX of 1941 must be construed strictly
because, firstly, it is an exemption from the limitation imposed by s. 2 of
the Act and, secondly, the effect of s. 3 and item 4 of th

## Text

MUNICIPAL COMMITIEE, AKOT
1·.
MANILAL MANEKJI PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER
November 17, 1966
[K. SUBBA RAO, c. J., J. c. SHAH, s. M. Suw, v. RAMASWAMI
AND c. A. v AJDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Constitu;ioa.._of India, Article 276-Municlpal tax« /evitd hy two
notifications under t~ Berar Municipal Law, 1886,-after its repeal notf.
fications continued hr opeTation by saving
Clause in C.P. Municipil/itill
Act, 1922-which was later amended and re-named C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922-Cetrtral ProfeSlion Tax Limitation Act, 1941 limitinl
municipal taxes-s. 3 read with item 4 of Schedule saving tta!s levied
under C.P. ,\1unicipalities Act, 1922-Whether taxes under -two notific•
tio11.s saved and in force at co1nmencemenl of Constitutio~r whethu
hit hy Art. 276(2).
The appellant Municipality which was constituted and empowered lo
impose certain taxes under the Berar Municipal Law, 1886, by one notification in 1899 imposed a tax on professions and trades practised in the
Municipality; and by another issued in 1908, imposed a tax on the ginning
and pressing of cotton.
The Berar Municipal Law was repealed in 1924 and in its place the
C.P.
Municipalitie, Act (II of 1922), with certain modifications,
WM
applied to Berar.
By virtue of a saving provision ins. 66(6) of lhc Act,
any 'axes previously imposed by a Municipality continued in opt;ration
even if they were not specified in the Act.
After Berar became a pan of
British India, by the Berar Laws (Provincial) Act (XV of 1941 ), which
came into force on August I, 1941 and which was passed by the Governor
of the Central Provinces and Berar under s. 93 of the Government
of
India Act, 1935, various acts including the C.P. Municipalit:es Act. 1922,
\\'CfC amended and ex'ended to Berar. The title of Ac1 11 of 1922 be>
came the Central Provinces and Berar
Municipalities Act,
1922,
and
:dtho1Jgh the Act as pre.viou1;Jy applied to Bcrar was to cease to have effect.
notifications etc. deemed to have
been made or issued under the C.P.
\funicipalities Act, 1922 were saved.
In the meantime, by the Profession Tax Limitation Act (XX of 1941),
passed by the Central Assembly. which came into force on April I, 1941,
taxes payable to a Municipality were restricted by s. 2 of :he Act in re'pect
of any one periOn to Rs. 50
per annum.
However, by s. 3 read with
ilem 4 of the Schedule to the Act. any tax levied by a Municioality in
'"'pect of any profession, trade. calling etc. imposed under s. 66(1 )(b)
oi the C.P. Municipalities Act. 1922, was exempted from the restricti09
contained in s. Z.
The respondents filed writ petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 challen~
inR certain demands made on thrm by the Municipal C'..ommittee. Akot. in
rosnect of tax levied under rhe two notification, of 1899 and 1908.
It
was contended by them that in view of An. 276, the notification• under
\\''hich the tax was imooscd could not be enforced except to the txteot
Provided under Art. 276(2) of the Constitution. The case of the Municipal Committee
was that the notifications
were in force
immcdiatefy
before the commencement of the Constitution and therefore were not bit
by Art. 276(2). The High Court rejected thi• contention and allowed
the petilion.
A.
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE V. MANlLAL (Sikri, /.)
IOI
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant
committee that item 4 in the Schedule to Act XX of 1941 covered the impugned lax because the Act. was the same under which the tax ~":' being
imposed and recovered and the fact that the title of the C.P. Mu01c1palit1es
Act, 1922, was changed by the Berar Laws (Provincial) Act, 1941, did
mt make any difference; that if a tax was deemed to be imposed under
the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, it was still a rax imposed
11Dder s. 66(1) of the C.P. Municipalities Act, 1922; and that it was a
case of mis.description that the word Berar had not been mentioned in
item 4 of the Schedule.
HELD : Dismissing the appeal :
Item 4 in the Schedule to Act XX of 1941 must be construed strictly
because, firstly, it is an exemption from the limitation imposed by s. 2 of
the Act and, secondly, the effect of s. 3 and item 4 of the Schedule is to
continue the leviability of a tax and must therefore be construed like
a
taxing statute.
,
Various taxes must have been imposed by the Municipalities in
the
Central Provinces by virtue of notifications issued under s. 66(1) (b) and
they would fall within. the ambit of item 4. Item 4 would not therefore
be otiose even if it was not treated as a case of mis-description but given
the plain meaning I.e. that the C.P. Municipalities Act, 1922, did not mean
the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922.
The word 'imposed' io item 4 meant that the taxes which can be
oootinued to be levied should have 'been imposed before Act XX of 1941
came into force. This •wuld be in consonance with •. 142A(2) of the
Government of India Act. 1935, restricting muni~ipal taxes in rec;pect of
any one person to Rs. 50 per annum from March 31, 1939. The pro-
"fiso to this Section enabled the Dominion Legislature to make a contrary
provision where a higher rate was previously in force, but it could not
1D1der the proviso authorise a fresh imposition exceeding Rs. 50. [106 H107 DJ
CIVIL APPF.LLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1611 and
1612 of 1966.
From the judgment and order dated April 29, 1964 of the
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Applications
Nos. 470 of 1962 and 447 of 1963.
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and Naunit Lal, for the appellant
(in both the appeals):
M. C. Setalvad, N. D. Kharkhanis and A. G. Ratnaparkh
for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1611 of 1966).
R. Ganapathy Iyer, S. P. Nayyar and R. H. Dhebar for respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 1611 of 1966).
S. N. Kherdekar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent
(in C.A. No. 1612 of 1966).
The Judgment of the Court W?.s delivered by
SiI?'i, J. These two appeals involve the same point and can be
convemently disposed of by one common judgment. The relevant
facts may be given from one appeal only.
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967) 2 S.C.R.
The respondents, Manila! Manekji Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition
under art,. 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, praying that cenain demands
made by the Municipality of Akot be quashed and that the Municipality he ordered to refund the advance deposit which the respondent
had made. These demancis and advance deposits were in respect
of a tax known popularly as 'the gin tax and press tax' levied by the
Municipality of Akot. In brief, the case of the respondent was
that in view of art. 276 of the Constitution, the notifications under
which the tax was imposed could not be enforced except to the
extent providet: under art. 276(2) of the Constitution. The case
of the Municipal Committee, in brief, was that the notifications
were in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution and, therefore, were not hit by art. 276(2).
/
It is now necessary to set out the history of the notifications
and the various munic;pal laws which were made applicable to the
Municipal Committee, Akot, from time to time. It appears that the
Municipal Committee, Akot, was constituted under the Berar
Municipal Law. 1886, and under section 41 of the Bernr Municipal
Law, 1886. the Committee was empowered to impose certain taxes.
It may be mentioned that the llerar Municipal Law. 1886, was promulgated by Notification No. 3938-1 dated November 5, 1886. by
the Viceroy and Governor-General in Council.
Berar, at the relevant time. was not part of the British India. The Municipal Committee. Akot. 1ss;1ed notification No. 98, dated March 14, 1899.
regarding levy of profession tn. The relevant part of the notification rc:ids as follows:
"With reference to section 44, clause (9) of the Berar
Municipai LI\\ 1886, it is hereby notified that the Municipal
Committee of Akot has, with the sanction of the Resident,
directed the imposition with effect from the l~t April 1899.
of a tax under section 41(1) A(b) of the law, on professions
and trades practised in that Municipality subject to the
following rule.
(I) The tax shall, subject to th~ following provision, be
assessable on every person who practises any profession or
art or any trade in the Akot Muncipality the whole or any
part of whose income derived from any sources other than
agriculture is n0t less than Rs. 100 per annum. at the rate
of o;ie and a quancr per cent on the taxable portion of
his estimated income derived from any such source provided that,
(i) No person or firm shall be assessed at a sum
exceeding Rs. 500 per annum or less than eight annas ... "
Another notification was issued on July 13, 1908, in the
following terms:
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE V. MANILAL (Sikri, /.)
103
"No 1063-With reference to section 44, sub-section
(7) and (8), of the Berar Municipal Law, 1886,. it is hereby
notified that the Municipal Committee of Akot, in Akola
district, has with the sanction of the Chief Commissioner,
directed the imposition with
effect from 1st August
1908 of a tax on the Ginning and Pressing of Cotton
under section 41(1) (A) (b) of the said law to be levied from
all persons carrying on within the limit of the AkotJMunici·
pality, the trade of ginning cotton and pressing the same
into bales by means of steam or mechnical process, at
the
following rates:
(1) For ·each boja of ten maunds ginned 8 pies.
(2) For each bale of fourteen maunds pressed IO pies.
The tax is payable in one instalment on the first of
August each year."
On January 22, 1924, the following notification was issued by
the Governor-General in Council :
"No. 58-1. In exercise of the powers conferred
by the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council,
1902 and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf,
the Governor-General in Council is pelased to direct
that the following further amendments shall bemade in the
First Schedule to the Notification of the Government
of India in the Foreign Department, No. 3510·1. B. dated
the 3rd November, 1913, applying certain enactments to
Berar, namely :
After
Entry No.149 the following entry shall be inserted,
namely:
"150. The Central Provinces
Municipalities Act, 1922 (II
of 1922).
(1) In Section 2
(a) for sub-section (!) the following
shall be substituted,
namely:
"(l) The Berar Municipal Law,
1886, is
hereby
repealed."
(b) in sub-section (2), for the
words "Acts" the word "Law"
shall be substituted."
It is not necessary to set out all the amendments made by the
notification in ihe Central Provinces
Municipalities Act, 19..!2.
'The effect of this notification, in brief, was to apply the Central
Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922, with certain modifications, to·
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[I 96 7] 2 S.C.R.
Berar and to repeal the Berar Municipal Law, 1886, and furtherto
save the taxes imposed and other acts done by the Municipalities
by deeming them to have hccn made, imposed or assrssed under
the Central Provinces and Berar Act, 1922 (2 of 1922) as aryplied.to
Berar.
It was further provided by sub-s. (6) of s. 66 that "any
tax imposed in a Municipality before the date on which this Act
comes into force shall continue in operation notwithstanding that
it is not a tax specified in sub-section(!)", and sub-s. (7) of s. 66
enabled a committee to abolish any tax to which sub-section (6)
applied as if it were a tax imposed under this Act but may not vary
the amou'lt or rate therc,)f.
The Jaw as applied to Berar, although called the Central Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922, was not the same law as the Central
Provinces
Municipalities Act, 1922, as in force in the Central
Provinoes.
On August 1, 1941, the Central Provinoes and Berar Act (XV.of
1941)-called the Berar law.s (Provincial) Act, 1941----0lme into
foroe. This Act was passed by the Governor under s. 93 of the
Government of India Act, 1935, Berar having become part of the
Governor's Province of the Central Provinces and Berar. Section
,47 of the Government of India Act, 1935, provided that "Berar shall
continue to be governed together with the Central Provinces as one
Governor's Province under this Act by the name of the Central
Provinces and Betar and in the same manner as immediately before
the establishment of the Dominion; and any reference in this Act
to the Dominion of India shall be construed as including a
reference to Berar." By this Act the Governor extended various
acts to Berar including the Central Provinces Municipalities, Act,
1922 (II of 1922).. The following amendments were made in
the Cmtral Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922:
"(I) To sub-section (2) of .;ection 12, the following
proviso shall be added, namely:-
"Provided that in the case of two adjacent Municipalities in Berar the State '.Jovernment may by a general
or special order exclude the residents of one municipality
from voting in a special constituency of the other municipality."
. <) After sub-section ( 5) of section 66, the following
subs, ~on shall be inserted, namely:
"(5A) Any tax imposed in a municipality in Berar
before the date on which this Act comes into force shall
continue in operation notwithstanding that it is not a tax
specified in sub-section (!).
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
MUNIC!PAL COMMITTEE V. MANILAL (Sikri, /.)
105
(SB) A committee in Berar may abolish any tax to
which sub-section (SA) applies as if it were a tax imposed
under this Act but may not vary the amount or rate thereof."
As a result of s. 2(2) of the Central Provinces and Ber:;r Act
(XV of 1941), the title of the Central Provinces Municipalities Act,
1922 (II of 1922) became the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (II of 1922). Section 3 of this Act provided
inter alia that the Central Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922, which
had been applied to Perar by order under the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council, 1902, shall cease to have effect "provided
that all appointments, delegations, notifications, orders, byelaws
rules and regulations which have been made or issued, or deemed
to have been made or issued and all other things done or deemed
to have been done under, or in pursuance of, any provision of
any of the said Acts as applied to Berar by order under the said
Order in Council, and which are in force at the commencement of
this Act, shall be deemed to have been made or issued or done under
or in pursuance of the corresponding provision of that Act as n·ow
extended, to, and in force in, Berar."
In the meantime a bill was introduced in the Central Assembly
on March, 21, 1941, which was ultimately passed as The Professions
Tax Limitation Act, 1941 (XX of 1941). This Act came into force
on April 1, 1941. This Act provided:
"S. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of any law
for the time being in force, any taxes payable in respect
of any one person to a Province, or to any one municipality,
district board, local board, or other local authority in any
Province, by way of tax on professions, trades, callings
or
employments,
shall from and after the commencement of this Act cease to be levied to the extent in
which such taxes exceed fifty rupees per annum."
3. The provisions of section 2 shall not apply to any
tax specified in the Schedule."
The Schedule is as follows:
THE SCHEDULli:
(See section 3)
Taxes to which section 2 does not apply.
H
I. The tax on professions, trades and callings; imposed
through fees for annu.al liaences, under Chapter XII of the
Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923.
M19S\lp.CI/66-8
106
SUPUME 00\lltT llli\l'OATS
{l967) 2 S.C.R.
2. The tax on trades, professions and calling<;, imposed
under clause (f) of sub-section (I) of section 123 of the
Bengal Municipal Act, 1932.
3. The tax on trades and callings carried on within the
municipal limits and deriving special advantages from, or
imposing special burdens on, municipal services, imposed
under clause (ii) of sub-section (I) of section 128 'Jf the
United Provinces ~iunicipalities Act, 1916.
4. The tax on persons exercising any profession or art,
or carrying on any trade or calling, within the limits
of the municipality, imposed under clause (b) of section (1)
of section 66 of the Central Provinces Municipalities Act,
1922.
5. The tax on companies, imposed under section 110
of the Madras City Municipal A~t. 1919.*"
On behalf of the Municipdity it was inter alia contended before
the High Court that the impugned tax fell within item 4 of the
Schedule to the Profession Tax Limitation Act, 1941, but the High
Court negatived the contention following an earlier judgment of
the High Court in an unreported
case (Bidarbha Mills Berar
Limited v. The Citv Municipal Committee of Acha/pur)(1).
The learned Solicitor-General, appearing fer the appellant
Municipal Committee, contended that item No. 4 in the Schedule
covers the impugned tax because the Act is the same under which
the tax is being imposed and re~vered and the fact that the title of
the Central Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922, was changed by the
Berar Laws (Provincial) Act, 1941, docs not make any difference.
He says that there is nothing in the Profession Ta\ Limitation Act,
1941, to show that the exemp~ion was intended to be given only to a
particular territory. He further urges as follows: The fact that this
notification, No. 98 dated March 14, 1899, is now deemed to be
issued under the \,entr:ll Provinces and Bcrar Municipalities Act,
1922, does not make it any the less imposed under the Central
Provinces Municipalities
Act, 1922, within item 4; if 11 tax is
deemed to be imposed under the Central
Provinces and Berar
Muniripalities Act, 1922, it is still a tax 'imposed' under s. 66{1) of the
Central Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922; it is a case of misdescription that the word 'Berar' has not been mentioned in item 5 of the
Sct.edule to the Professioa Tax Limitation Act, 1941; the item will be
otiose if any other meaning is ascribed to it.
In our opinion the High Court came to the correct conclusion.
Fil
item No. 4 is an exemption from the limitation imposed bys. 2
•Ins. bys. 2 of the Prorwiom Tu Umltalioo (Amaldmont) Jv;t, 1946 (V
of 1946) (rctrospoctivcly)
(I) High
Court of Judicature at Bombay (Na11>11r Bran<b) Special Civil
ApplicatiOD No. J°' of 1960---juelgmem dcli'l'trcd on A ...... !>, 19do.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
MUNICIPAL COMMl'l'Yl!E v. MANlLAL (Sllcri, J.)
107
of die Professions Tax Limitation Act, 1941, and the exemptior.
muss be construed strictly. Seoondly, the effect of s. 3 and item 4
of th<: Sehedule is to continue the leviability of a tax and, in our
opinion, this irem must be construed strictly like a taxin£ statute.
If Mr. Gupte had been able to convince us that the item would be
otiose if this interpretation is put there would be something to say in
his favour. But the item will not be otiose even if we do not treat
item 4 as a case of misdescription but give the plain. meaning that the
Central
Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922, means the Central
Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922, and not the Central Provinces
and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922. Various taxes must have been
iniposcd by the Municipalities in the Central Provinces by vir$Ue.
of notifications issued under s. 66(1.) (b) of the Central Provinces
Municipalities Act,
1922, and they would fall within the
ambit of item 4. Further if we
accept
Mr.
Gupte's
argument we will not be giving full effect to the word "imposed".
This, in our view, means that the taxes which can continue to be
le~ should have been imposed in the past before the Profession
Tax Limitation Act, 1941, came into force. This is in consonance
withs. 142 A(2) of the Government oflndia Act, 1935, which was in
the following terms:
"142A(2). The total amount payable in respect of
any one person to the Province or to any one municipality,
district board, local board, or other local authority in the
Province by way of taxes on professions, trades, callings
and employments shall not, after the thirty-first day of
March nineteen hundred and thirty nine, exceed fifty
rupees per annum;
Provided that, if in the financial year ending with that
date there was in force in the case of any Province or any
such municipality, board or authority a tax on professions,
trades, callings or employments the rate, or the maximum
rate, of which exceeded fifty rupees per annum the preceding
provisions of this sub-section shall, unless for the time being
provision to the contrary is made by a law of the Dominion
Legislature, have effect in relation to that Province, munici·
pality, board or authority as if for the reference to fifty
mpees per annum there were substituted a reference to that
rate or maximum rate, or such lower rate, if any (being a
rate greater than fifty rupees per annum), as may for the
time being be fixed by a law of the Dominion Legislature;
and any law of the Dominion Legislature made for any
of the !'llrposes of this proviso may be made either generally
or in relation to any specific Province~. municipalities,
boards or authorities."
108
(1967)2 I.CL
The proviso clearly shows that the section enabled
the
A
Dominion Legislature to make a contrary provision if in the financial year ending March 31, 1939, there was in force.a tax on professions, trades, callings or cmpluymcnts the rate of which exceeded
Rs. 50/-. Tue Dominion Legislature could not authorise under the
proviso a fresh iniposition exceeding Rs. 50/-.
In view of our above conclusions it is not necessary to deal with
the poi;.,t whether the word "iniposed" in item 4 of the Schedule to
the Profession Tax Limitation Act, 1941, would include "deemed to
be iniposed" because by virtue of s. 3 of the Berar Laws (Provincial)
a
Act, I 94 I, the tax would be deemed to be iniposed not under the
Central Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922, but the Central Pro·
C
vinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922.
In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. One
hearing fee.
R. LP. S.
A.ppeo/s dismls3etl.