Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal from an order of a learned single judge dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant, the Knanaya Medical Mission, a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, Act 12 of 1955. 2. The writ petition challenged the levy of profession tax upon the society by the Panchayat in question. The Memorandum and Articles of Association of the society is Ext. P1. That shows that ten persons, whose names and addresses are given therein have subscribed to it. One among the several objects of the society was to run a hospital called Menathottam Hospital. Clause (3) of the Memorandum provides: "The objects for which the Society is established are: (a) To take over the lands in Angadi Muri in Ranni village, Pathanamathitta taluk acquired in the name of Shri. M.K.Kuriakose, Menathodathil, Ranni, on behalf of the Society then in formation together with the Hospital Buildings and other erections being established thereon and the furniture instruments and equipments provided therein (known as Menathottam Hospital), all with funds raised in advance by the promoters of of the society from prospective Members and others towards the Capital Contributory Fund of the Society and by way of loans and donations; (b) To establish, equip, maintain and conduct hospitals, dispensaris and nursing home for the benefit of the public with a view to rendering medical and surgical treatment care, nursing and attention to in-patients and outpatients; (c) To establish and conduct medical educational institutions and training schools and centres for doctors, midwives, nurses and others engaged in the medical and allied callings of a humanitarian nature; and to render financial and other assistance to such institutions and for/or to students and trainees in such institutions; (d) To establish and conduct schools, relief centres, orphanages and homes for beggars, destitutes and disabled and run such other charitable establishments as may be deemed desirable; (e) To build and maintain houses, and alter and improve the same, including any existing buildings and provide the same with electric service, light, water, drainage and all other necessaries; (f) To let as residences, paywards, offices, shops or otherwise any part or parts of any land or buildings and is such division and manner as may be expedient; 3. By Ext. P2 notice dated 5101960 a sum of Rs. By Ext. P2 notice dated 5101960 a sum of Rs. 125/-was demanded from the petitioner as profession tax for the half year from 1st April 1960 to 30th September 1960 under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Rules. The society filed an appeal against the notice to the Panchayat. That was dismissed. There was was a further appeal to the Deputy Director of Local Bodies; and he set aside the notice. The Panchayat then moved the government in revision and the government set aside the order of the Deputy Director of Local Bodies without notice to the petitioner. The Panchayat thereafter sent a demand bill dated 3112 1964 (Ext. P3) for profession tax for the years 196162 to 1964 65 (first half). The order of government was challenged in a writ petition in this court and by Ext. P4 judgment the government was directed to dispose of the revision afresh in accordance with law. Ext P5 is a copy of the order passed by the government on 13 21967. It will be seen from Ext- P5 that the petitioner was aggrieved by the demand of the profession tax and also building tax. In Ext. P5 the government said that the society was exempt from building tax in respect of the building housing the hospital under S.61 (f) of the T.C. Panchayats Act, 1950; but as regards the levy of profession tax the government took the view that S.61 of the T.C. Panchayats Act which exempted certain buildings and land from any cess, rate or tax leviable under S.56 was unavailable as it did not provide for any exemptions in respect of companies and persons. The government further said that there is no provision for a specific order of exemption under S.62 of the T. C. Panchayats Act and that the society has not been specifically exempted under the section. It was this order together with Ext. P5 demand that was challenged in the O.P. before the learned judge. 4. The learned judge after considering R.123 of the T.C. Panchayats Rules as also the provisions of S.69 (1) of the Kerala Panchayats Act found that there was no evidence to show that the society in conducting the hospital was not transacting business. P5 demand that was challenged in the O.P. before the learned judge. 4. The learned judge after considering R.123 of the T.C. Panchayats Rules as also the provisions of S.69 (1) of the Kerala Panchayats Act found that there was no evidence to show that the society in conducting the hospital was not transacting business. He said that as the society did not show before the Panchayat that it was not deriving profit from conducting the hospital, but was acting in conformity which the Memorandum, it was liable to profession tax. In this view he dismissed the writ petition. 5. R.123 of the T. C. Panchayat Rules provided: "(1) Every company which transacts business in a Panchayat area for not less than sixty days in the aggregate in any half-year and every person who in any half-year (a) exercises a profession, art or calling or transacts business or holds any appointment, public or private (i) within the Panchayat area for not less than sixty days in the aggregate, or (ii) without the Panchayat area but who resides in the Panchayat area for not less than sixty days in the aggregate, or (b) resides in the Panchayat area for not less than sixty days in the aggregate and is in receipt of any pension or income from investments, shall pay in half-yearly tax. The Kerala Panchayats Act came into operation on 9121960. The relevant portion of S.69 of that Act reads as follows: "69 (1). The profession tax shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed be levied every half year in every Panchayat area on (it every company which transacts business in such Panchayat area for not less than sixty days in the aggregate in that half year; and (ii) every person who, in that half year (a) exercises a profession, act or calling or transacts business or holds any appointment, public or private (i) within such Panchayat area for not less than sixty days in aggregate or (ii) without such Panchayat area but who resides in it for not less than sixty days in the aggregate or (b) resides in such Panchayat area for not less than sixty days in the aggregate and is in receipt of any pension or income from investments"' Ext. P2 demand was made under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Rules, and Ext. P3 under the Kerala Panchayats Act. P2 demand was made under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Rules, and Ext. P3 under the Kerala Panchayats Act. Looking at the definition of the word 'company' in the T. C. Panchayats Act, the petitioner would be a company as the definition of the word included an'association of persons whether incorporated or not'; and so the point for decision so far as Ext. P2 demand is concerned is whether the petitioner in conducting the hospital was transacting business during the period in question. The definition of 'company' has been changed in the Kerala Panchayats Act; and it is as follows: "'company' means a company as defined in the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956) and includes a foreign company within the meaning of S.591 of that Act." The society is, therefore, a person within the meaning of the term in S.69; and the question so far as Ext. P3 demand is concerned is whether the society was carrying on any profession, art or calling or transacting any business. The case of the Panchayat was that the society whether considered as a company or a person, was transacting business within the Panchayat in running the hospital, and would be liable for profession tax. Alternatively the Panchayat also contended that for the period covered by Ext. P3 the society being a' person by virtue of the change in the definition was exercising a calling within the Panchayat. So the first question is whether the society if treated as a person or company was transacting business within the Panchayat. The contention of the appellant was that the society had no motive to make a profit in conducting the hospital, and that clause (3) of the Articles of Association is clear upon that point, and therefore, it was not transacting business in running the hospital. The contention of the appellant was that the society had no motive to make a profit in conducting the hospital, and that clause (3) of the Articles of Association is clear upon that point, and therefore, it was not transacting business in running the hospital. Clause.3 reads: "The Society shall not operate for profit and accordingly its net income after meeting all expenses and after setting apart such funds as may be determined by the Board at the end of each year towards repayment of deposits accepted or loans raised or interests due, shall be expended solely for the promotion of the Objects set forth in the Memorandum, or in case of dissolutions then as lawfully decided in such dissolutions: PROVIDED HOWEVER that nothing herein shall prevent the payment in good faith of actual travelling expenses to any Governor attending a Board Meeting, or of remuneration to any officers or servants of the Society in return for any services actually rendered nor prevent payment of interest at a rate not exceeding six percent per annum on any borrowed from any Governor or Member of the Society or of rent for any land or building demised to the Society." Whether there should be a motive to make profit in order to constitute an activity a business is a matter of some controversy. In Rolls v. Miller (1884-53 Law Journal Reports, page 99) Pearson J.,held that motive to make profit is not essential to constitute an activity a business. The question that fell for consideration in that case was whether a covenant in a lease that the lessee would not carry on upon the demised premises "any trade or business of any description whatsoever" was violated by subletting the premises to the trustees of the society there for providing homes for working girls, and the latter proceeded to fit up the premises for the purpose of one of their homes. It was the practice of the society to make small charges upon the inmates of their homes for board and lodging, but the sums received in that way were insufficient to defray the expenses of the homes. It was the practice of the society to make small charges upon the inmates of their homes for board and lodging, but the sums received in that way were insufficient to defray the expenses of the homes. It was held that notwithstanding that the work of the society was not carried on for the purpose of making a profiit, and might therefore not be a trade, it was still a business, and that what it was proposed to do upon the demised premises would therefore constitute a breach of the covenant, which must be restrained by injunction. Pearson J., in the course of his judgment said. "It cannot, therefore, be said to be in any sense, a business which is carried on with the object of making a profit. But is it or is it not a business? Because if it be a business, then it is to my mind, as it was also to the mind of the late Sir George Jessel immaterial whether profit is or is not the object of it. Now the covenant here is this, that no trade or business of whatever description shall be carried on; and, to my mind, the word 'business' is a very much larger word than'trade', and you are not to restrict, in a covenant of this kind, the word 'business' simply to that which would be a trade. The word business is inserted in these covenants in order to include diverse occupations which would not strictly come within the meaning of the word 'trade', and in this covenant there is certainly no limitation of the word 'business because it is 'trade or business of any description whatsoever'." See also the decision in A Debtor, In re Law Journal 1927-96 Ch. D. 28. In Sethurama Menon v. Meenakshi Amma 1966 KLJ. 744 a Division Bench of this Court quoted with approval the following passage from M/s. L.M. Chitade v. Labour Commissioner AIR. 1964 Madras 131. "At the outset, I may mention that there is certainly a fundamental difference between a profession and a trade or business. That seems to be implicit in the reference to 'profession, occupation, trade or business' found in Art.19 of the Constitution. It is normally understood that trade or business is carried on with a profit motive. 1964 Madras 131. "At the outset, I may mention that there is certainly a fundamental difference between a profession and a trade or business. That seems to be implicit in the reference to 'profession, occupation, trade or business' found in Art.19 of the Constitution. It is normally understood that trade or business is carried on with a profit motive. I do not think it is necessary to cite any authority for that view." But we do not think it necessary to resolve this question here for the reason that the society has not shown that in conducting the hospital it had no profit motive. It has not been shown that no profit has been made or intended to be made from running the hospital Clause (3) of the Articles of Association mentioned above does not forbid the society from making a profit in conducting the hospital. The fact that the profit when made will have to be utilised for the other objects of the society mentioned in the Memorandum which might themselves be charitable would not make the activity of conducting the hospital any-the-less a business with profit motive. Suppose that by conducting the hospital the society made a profit in the relevant half-years but utilised it for the other objects of the society mentioned in clause (3) of the Memorandum, could it have been contended that the society was conducting the hospital without profit? We do not think so. Merely because the society is bound by clause (3) of the Articles of Association not to make profit but apply it for the purposes of the society, be they charitable or not, it cannot be said that the activity of the society in conducting the hospital is not a business. The only question which is relevant for the purpose of this case is to find out whether the society intended to make or was making a profit from conducting the hospital. Whether the profit was appropriated for the personal benefit of the Directors or whether it was utilised for the other purposes whether charitable or not, mentioned in the Memorandum is quite immaterial for deciding the question whether in conducting the hospital the society was making a profit or not. Whether the profit was appropriated for the personal benefit of the Directors or whether it was utilised for the other purposes whether charitable or not, mentioned in the Memorandum is quite immaterial for deciding the question whether in conducting the hospital the society was making a profit or not. To put differently, if there was the motive to make profit or profit was actually made in running the hospital the fact that the profit when made was utilised for the other purposes mentioned in the Memorandum, whether charitable or not, would not make the running of the hospital any the less an activity with profit motive. The question to be asked and answered is whether the society was conducting the hospital without any motive to make a profit from that activity? The fact that the profit was utilised for the other purposes mentioned in Ext. P1 and that the society ultimately made no profit for itself would be irrelevant in answering the question. Since in this case the society has not proved that there was no intention to make profit or that no profit was actually made or that it was utilising the profit for augmenting the fund for the development of the hospital or earmarked it for the better running of the hospital itself, it has to be held that the society was carrying on an activity for profit, and therefore, transacting business within the Panchayat. 6. Quite apart from this, for the period covered by Ext. P3, the society being a 'person' in view of the change in the definition of the word 'company' in the Kerala Panchayats Act, there is no difficulty in holding that the society was exercising a calling in running the hospital. The word 'calling' in the section is of wide import. In State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (AIR. 1960 S.C. 610) the court said that the word 'calling' is a word of very wide import and that it is means 'one's usual occupation, vocation, business or trade. In the result, we dismiss the appeal, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.