Judgment :- 1. This is a reference made by the District Judge of Trivandrum, under S. 26 of the Trivandrum City Municipal Act, IV of 116 (Travancore). The only question that is referred for the decision of the High Court is "whether Dearness Allowance is liable for assessment of Profession Tax" under the said Act. Profession tax was levied by the Corporation under class XIV (I), Schedule II of the said Act which provides: "(I) All persons holding any appointment upon a Half yearly monthly salary which amounts to fifty or upwards but is maximum Minimum less than one hundred Rupees. Rs. Rs. 2 1 If dearness allowance be not included, the assessee would be free from Professional Tax as his salary is only Rs. 45/- per mensem. The decision of the question depends upon the proper interpretation of the definition of the word "salary" which is given in S.3, Cl. (34) which reads thus: "(34) "Salary" means pay and acting pay, or payment by way of commission and includes exchange compensation allowances, but not allowances for house-rent, carriage hire, or travelling expenses". 2. It is clear from a perusal of the above definition that allowances came in for the consideration of the legislature and certain specified allowances were brought within the meaning of the term "salary" while certain others were expressly excluded. The dearness allowance in question was one that did not exist at the time of the Act, but was granted subsequent thereto on account of "the rise in the prices of articles of food stuffs and other necessaries of life". It is thus clear that the dearness allowance has not been, as it could not have been contemplated and expressly brought within the meaning of the term "salary". 3. Learned counsel for the corporation contended that the meaning given in the dictionary for the word "pay" is "whatever is paid as remuneration for services" and that dearness allowance being paid as remuneration for services, it comes within the meaning of the word "pay" contained in the above definition of "salary". He also contended that dearness allowance would be income liable to tax under the Income-tax Act. The following principles of interpretation which are well known will furnish the answer to the question. He also contended that dearness allowance would be income liable to tax under the Income-tax Act. The following principles of interpretation which are well known will furnish the answer to the question. In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Ryde Pier Co., (4 ATC 513) Rowlatt, J. said:- "I agree that this case was not contemplated, but when one gets cases under the taxing law which cannot be contemplated, it does not do to make assumptions as to what they would have said had they contemplated the case". "If a special definition of a word is given in the Act, it should be adopted if not repugnant to the context". Reg v. Govind and others (ILR 16 Bom. 283). "The words of a statute should be understood in the sense they bore when the statute was passed" Yorkshire, etc. Co. v. Clayton (1 Tax Cases 485). "It is unsafe to refer to the definition clauses in other statutes. Adamson v. Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of Works (1929 A.C. 142). "The crown does not tax by analogy but by statute It is not for us to say, nor do we know, what the legislature may or may not have meant apart from their words by which we are bound alike as to what they say and in what they do not. Words which impose a tax in general may receive a particular, "limitation" based upon the other portions of the Act or of a definition. Per Lord Summer in Ormond Investment Co. Ltd. v. Betts (1928 A.C. 143 at page 188). "The argument that the subject falls within the spirit of the law if not within the words of the statute, cannot be accepted." (See Partington v. Attorney General (1869) L.R. 4 H.L. 100). 4. Assuming dearness allowance would be taxable income within the provisions of the Income-Tax Act which we are not called upon to decide in this case, that circumstance cannot be regarded as relevant in understanding the definition of the word "salary" in S. 3(34) of Act IV of 1116 (Travancore). Applying the above principles to the present case, it is clear that dearness allowance was not contemplated at the time the Act was passed as it did not then exist, whereas other allowances were. Applying the above principles to the present case, it is clear that dearness allowance was not contemplated at the time the Act was passed as it did not then exist, whereas other allowances were. It is not therefore safe or proper to interpret the word "pay" contained in the definition of "salary" so as to take in dearness allowance which was not in contemplation at the time. The interpretation of the law should be according to what it was meant to connote at the time it was made. We consider the matter clear, and does not need any further discussion. 5. We answer the question under reference in the negative and hold that dearness allowance is not liable for assessment to Profession Tax under Act IV of 1116. 6. If the legislature deems fit to make dearness allowance part of the salary for purposes of liability for Profession Tax, it is up to it to make appropriate amendments in the Act in that behalf.