ORDER.- This Revision has been filed by the Madurai Municipality against the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, on a Small Cause Suit instituted by the respondent company for refund of profession tax for seven half-years on the basis that the tax had been collected illegally, that is, the Municipality was not entitled to levy the tax in the circumstances, pleaded. The brief facts are: The plaintiff is a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act and doing business in the manufacture and sale of paper conesand tubes of various descriptions. The Company’s factory is situate in Virudhunagar, Ramanathapuram District. The manufacture of goods by the Company is done at Virudhunagar. All contracts are entered at Virudhunagar and all sales, etc., are made at Virudhunagar. But the plaintiff Company’s affairs are managed by their agents Messrs. A. &38; F. Harvey Company, Limited, Madurai and the registered Office of the plaintiff Company is situated within Madurai Municipal Limits. The plaintiff contended that though the Head Office of the Company was situated within the Municipal limits of Madurai, it had not been transacting any business in Madurai. and therefore the levy of profession tax for the seven half-years was ultra vires, the contention of the ‘plaintiff being that the levy was not in accordance with or in conformity with the provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Court below on the evidence which was unrebutted found that the plaintiff did not transact any business as such within the limits of the Madurai Municipality. Under section 93 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (Madras Act V of 1920) if the Council by a resolution determines that a profession tax shall be levied, then every company which, after the date specified in the notification published under section 80, transacts business in the Municipality for not less than sixty days in the aggregate in any half-year shall pay a half-yearly tax assessed in accordance with the rules in Schedule IV, of the Act. Rule 17 of Schedule IV provides thus: “A company or person shall be deemed to have transacted business and a person shall be deemed to have exercised a profession, art or calling or held an appointment within a municipality if such company or person has an office or place of employment within such municipality.” Now by virtue of this deeming provision it can be held in this case that the company is transacting business within the Municipal limits as required under section 93. But the fact remains that the company is actually transacting business in Virudhunagar in Ramanathapuram District. In a case of this kind where a company can be held to be transacting business in more than one area basis for levy of profession, tax is provided for under rule 18 of Schedule IV. Rule 18 runs thus: “ (1) Where a company or person transacts any business other than money-lending in any half-year exclusively in the area of a single municipality, the income of such company or person from the transaction of such business shall for the purpose of levying profession tax under this Act during the half-year, be deemed to be - (a) where income-tax is assessed on such company or person under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for the year comprising the half-year, one half of the amount at which the profits and gains of such business are computed under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the purpose of assessing the income-tax ; and (b) where the amount of the said profits and gains is not ascertainable or where such company, or person is not assessed to income-tax, such percentage or percentages as the (State Government)‘ ‘may subject to the approval of both Houses of the State Legislature determine, of the turnover of such business transacted in the area of the municipality during the half-year or where this is also unascertainable during the corresponding half-year of the previous year. (2) Where a company or person transacts any business other than money-lending partly in the area of a municipality and partly outside such area, the income of such company or person from the transaction of such business in the area of the municipality shall, for the purpose of levying profession tax under this Act be deemed to be the percentage referred to in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of the turnover of such business transacted in such area during half-year or the corresponding half-year of the previous year, as the case may be.” It will be seen that the levy shall be a percentage of the turnover in the area in question. Admittedly in this case and it is a finding on unrebutted evidence there is no turnover in the business within the limits of Madurai Municipality. It is only by virtue of the deeming provision in rule 17 that the company, has to be treated as transacting business within Madurai Municipal limits. Sub-clause (3) of rule 18 itself defines turnover and makes the position clear. It runs thus: “18. (3) For the purposes of clause (A) of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) the turnover of business in municipality means the aggregate money value of the goods produced, manufactured, purchased or sold or of any other business except money-lending transacted in such municipality.” For a turnover to be found in the area of the Municipality either goods must be produced or manufactured or purchased or sold. It is not contended that any of these operations relating to the business is carried on within Madurai Municipal limits. The lower Court has in this view held and rightly that the Municipality had no right to levy and realise the tax for the seven half-years in question, and decreed the suit as prayed for. Learned Counsel appearing for the Government Pleader raises a point that the suit does not he in the Small Cause Court. It is stated that there must be a declaration and a suit for declaratory relief is not cognisable by a Court of Small Causes, I do not think there is any necessity for a relief of declaration in this case. The suit is for recovery of the monies which have been illegally collected and once the plaintiff establishes that the levy is illegal, he is entitled to a decree. The suit is for recovery of the monies which have been illegally collected and once the plaintiff establishes that the levy is illegal, he is entitled to a decree. The need for a finding as to the illegality of the levy before refund could be claimed will not make the suit one of the kind contemplated in section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. Besides, no point as to the maintainability of the suit was taken in the lower Court. The result is that this Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs. R.M. ------- Petition dismissed.