Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal from the decision of Vaidialingam, J. in O. P. No.1342 of 1962. The respondent in that petition, the Commissioner of the Quilon Municipality, is the appellant before us. 2. The Malayalam Plantations Limited, Quilon, was the petitioner in that petition. Its contention was that Ext. E issued by the appellant on 27 41962 was not warranted by law and should be quashed on that account. That contention was upheld in the judgment under appeal. 3. The main controversy is as to the liability of the Malayalam Plantations Limited for assessment to profession tax under R.18 (2) of the Taxation and Finance Rules in Schedule II to the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116. That rule, omitting the proviso which has been struck down See 1961 KLJ. 971, 1963 KLJ. 1007 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in C. A. Nos. 415 to 419 of 1964 reads as follows: "Where a company or person transacts business partly in the area of a municipality and partly outside such area, the income of such company or person from, the transaction of business in the area of the municipality shall, for the purpose of levying profession tax under this Act, be deemed to be the percentage prescribed under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of the turnover of the business transacted in such area during the half-year or the corresponding half-year of the previous year, as the case may be:" 4. R.17 of the Taxation and Finance Rules in Schedule II to the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116, provides that a company shall be deemed to have transacted business within a municipality if such company has an office within such municipality. It is not denied that the Malayalam Plantations Limited has all along maintained an office within the Quilon Municipality; and it must follow that it must be considered as transacting business within that municipality and thus liable to assessment (See the judgment in O. P. No. 1103 of 1963). 5. The position was confused and Ext. E is certainly defective. The proper course, therefore, will be to sustain the quashing of Ext. E and leave the Municipality free to investigate the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in the matter. We do so. 6. 5. The position was confused and Ext. E is certainly defective. The proper course, therefore, will be to sustain the quashing of Ext. E and leave the Municipality free to investigate the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in the matter. We do so. 6. Under sub-rule (3) of R.18 of the Taxation and Finance Rules in Schedule II to the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116, the turnover of business in any municipality means the aggregate money value of the goods produced, manufactured, purchased or sold or of any other business transacted in such municipality. What the municipality should do first is to find out whether there is a turnover on the basis of that sub-rule which is liable to assessment. 7. Ext. E also demanded a surcharge of Rs. 310.65 under S.4 of the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957. That demand is certainly unsustainable in view of the decision in O.P.No.1103 of 1963 and should not be repeated. 8. The appeal is disposed of as above. No costs.