JUDGMENT Mootham, C.J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which raises the question whether the salary received by a Government servant can be taken into account in determining his total taxable income for the purpose of assessment to circumstances and property tax under the District Boards Act. 2. The petitioner is a Tahsildar and Assistant Collector of the second class who has been posted, since March 1955, at Ram-sanehighat in the district of Barabanki. The District Board of Barabanki assessed the petitioner to circumstances and property tax on the ground that he resided in the district, and on the 22nd December, 1956, it served on him a notice requiring him to pay a sum of Rs. 45-15-0 as such tax in respect of the year ending the 31st March, 1957. The petitioner contends that his salary cannot be taken into account in determining his liability to pay this tax, and in the petition which is now before me he prays that the notice of demand served on him be quashed. Sec. 114 of the District Boards Act, so far as it is relevant, reads thus : "Imposition of tax on circumstances and property. The power of a board to impose a tax on circumstances and property shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions, namely,- (a) the tax may be imposed on any person residing or carrying on business in the rural area, provided that such person has so resided or carried on business for a total period of at least six months in the year under assessment;.................... Explanation.- ................... The words "carrying on business" do not apply to service under the Government or a local body." 3. The last sentence was added to the section by U. P. Act XVI of 1934. The argument for the petitioner is that this sentence means that the salary of the person in the service of Government or a local body is to be disregarded in determining that person's taxable income for the purposes of assessment of circumstances and property tax. 4. The argument for the petitioner is that this sentence means that the salary of the person in the service of Government or a local body is to be disregarded in determining that person's taxable income for the purposes of assessment of circumstances and property tax. 4. Now it is not in dispute that had the petitioner been in the receipt of income from other sources in addition to his salary that additional income could properly be taken into account in determining his liability to pay the tax, and there can be no doubt that were it not for the final sentence of this section the petitioner would be liable to pay circumstances and property tax on his total taxable income on the ground that he was residing in the rural area. The question is therefore whether the sentence. "The words 'carrying on business' do not apply to service under the Government or a local body" has the meaning attributed to it by the petitioner. It is argued that unless these words are so construed as to exclude his salary being taken into account in determining his taxable income the final sentence would have no meaning. I do not think that this is so. Liability to this tax is founded either on residence or the carrying on of business within the rural area, and the only meaning that I think can properly be attributed to the sentence is that a servant of Government or of a local body cannot be made liable to tax on the ground that he carries on business. It does not, in my opinion, exclude his liability on the alternative basis, namely residence. 5. It is certainly difficult to understand precisely what purpose was intended to be served by the addition of this sentence to the section in 1934. In Gauri Shanker Verma v. Municipal Board, Sitapur, A.I.R. 1933 Oudh, 91 a Full Bench of the Oudh Chief Court had to consider whether the applicant could be assessed by a Municipal Board to circumstances and property tax under cl. (ix) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 128 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. That sub-section empowers a Municipal Board to impose a tax on "inhabitants" assessed to their circumstances and property, and the word "inhabitant" is defined in Sec. 2, cl. (ix) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 128 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. That sub-section empowers a Municipal Board to impose a tax on "inhabitants" assessed to their circumstances and property, and the word "inhabitant" is defined in Sec. 2, cl. (vii) of the Act with reference to a local area as meaning "any person ordinarily residing or carrying on business or owning or occupying immovable property therein." Sri Gauri Shankar Varma was a Subordinate Judge whose court was at Sitapur but who admittedly did not reside within municipal limits or own or occupy any immovable property therein. The question was therefore whether he could be said to be carrying on business. The Full Bench held that the phrase "carrying on business" implied something of a private or semiprivate nature and does not include the work of a Government official. It accordingly held that the applicant was not carrying on busness within municipal limits and could not be assessed to circumstances and property tax. In Seth Bimal Prasad v. The District Board, Saharanpur, A.I.R. 1933 Oudh, 91 a bench of this Court considered the meaning of the phrase "carrying on business" in Sec. 114 of the District Boards Act and it held that those words "primarily mean doing something for the purpose of gain, as opposed to working for some one else on payment of a salary." The Court accordingly held that the petitioners, who were employees of a sugar mill, could not be assessed to circumstances and property tax. Malik, C.J., in delivering the judgment of the Court said with reference to the last sentence of the section: "Why it was necessary to introduce these words by way of explanation is not clear as we do not find that there was any decision by any Court prior to 1934 where the words 'carrying on business' was interpreted to include service under the Government." 6. There was however a decision, namely that of Gauri Shanker Varma v. Municipal Board, Sitapur, A.I.R. 1933 Oudh, 91 to which I have already referred in which it was specifically held that those words did not include service under the Government. The probable explanation for the addition of the words in question, as pointed out by the Court, was that they were inserted ex abundanti cautela. The probable explanation for the addition of the words in question, as pointed out by the Court, was that they were inserted ex abundanti cautela. In my opinion the sentence, "The words 'carrying on business' do not apply to service under the Government or a local body" did not effect any alteration in the law. It follows therefore that as the petitioner resides within the rural area he is liable to circumstances and property tax and that in determining his total taxable income for the purposes of assessment his salary as a Government servant must be included. This petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.