Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1992) 11 SC CK 0058

Commissioner, Quilon Municipality and Another vs Canara Bank, Quilon and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 18 November 1992 · Citation: (1995) 4 SCC 502 Supp

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. B. Sawant, J · Kuldip Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeals Nos. 5749-5751 Of 1983 With Nos. 5748 Of 1983, 24 Of 1984 And 10666 Of 1983

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 298 words
1.

The question for consideration before the Kerala High court was whether a nationalised bank is a ''company'' as defined in the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116 (the Act). A full bench of the High court on the interpretation of Section 3(8 of the Act answered the question in the negative. These appeals by the Quilon Municipality is against the judgment of the full bench of the High court.

2.

The question decided by the High court is relevant in the context of the levy of profession tax under the Act. If the bank is held to be a ''company'' under the Act, the incidence of taxation is higher.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We have been taken through the judgment of the High court. The High court has elaborately dealt with various aspects arising out of the interpretation of Section 3(8 of the Act. We find no infirmity in the High court judgment. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein.

4.

While granting special leave this court, initially, granted stay of the operation of the impugned judgment of the High court. The stay order was, later on, vacated and as a consequence the appellant-municipalities were required to refund the excess profession tax recovered from the respondent- banks. Learned counsel for the parties are not in a position to say as to whether the excess tax has been refunded to the respective banks or not. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, specially that the municipality is a public utility body, we direct that in case the municipality has not already refunded the collected tax amount, it shall not be liable to refund the same.

5.

The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.