Under s. 3 of Central Act XXX of 1951 the appellant is entitled to a pension of Rs.
The Corporation of Madras the first respondent before us demanded profession tax from the appellant under s. 111 1 b of the City Municipal Act, 1919 hereinafter called the Act for the year 1958 1959 on the ground of the appellants residence within the city for the period therein specified and his drawing the pension to which he was entitled.
580 of 1962.
15,000/ per annum and has been drawing this sum residing in the city of Madras.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 1, 1961, of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.
The appellant held office as the last Governor General of India.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
of a numberice requiring the appellant to pay profession tax.
The authorities of the Corporation, however, insisted on companypliance with the demand on the ground that under the express terms of the Act persons in receipt of pensions were also liable to the tax.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. This appeal companyes before us by virtue of a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Madras under Art.
975 of 1959.
March 3, 1964.
The appellant addressed a companymunication to the Corporation asserting that this demand was illegal as the Corporation was empowered by the relevant companystitutional provisions merely to levy a tax on a profession, trade, calling or employment and that as he as a pensioner did number fall under any of these classes, the said demand was illegal.
and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for respondent No.
M. Seshadri.
133 1 c of the Constitution against its judgment dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Art.
Ganapathy lyer, for respondent No.
226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of prohibition against the Corporation of Madras challenging the companystitutional validity.
The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition for the relief already set out, and as the validity of the State Act was impugned impleaded the State of Madras also as a respondent.
