Judgment :- 1. The petitioner before me is the St. Mary's Monastery, Elthuruth. According to the averments in the writ petition the petitioner-Monastery is a religious institution belonging to the Catholic Congregation of Carmelites of Mary Immaculate Fathers of Kerala and its activities are devoted entirely to religious and charitable work. The members of the congregation have to take the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and they cannot own any properties of their own and their main occupation is to be prayer, meditation and religious services besides engaging themselves in any works of charity like conducting educational institutions and orphanages. These averments of fact contained in the writ.petition stand controverted. 2. The petitioner-Monastery owns some immovable properties within the local limits of the Ayyanthole Panchayat-the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent who is the Executive Officer of the said Panchayat assessed the Monastery to profession tax for the ten half years comprised in the period from 1-4-1958 to 31-3-1963 and for the half year covering the period 141963 to 30 91963 under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act 1950 and the Kerala Panchayats Act 1960. The petitioner-Monastery filed a writ petition O.P. 232 of 1964 before this Court challenging the validity of those assessments on various grounds including a plea that opportunity had not been given to it to place its objections against the imposition of profession tax on the Monastery before the assessing authority before the assessment orders were passed. This Court set aside the assessment for the half year 141963 to 30 91963 and directed the Panchayat to determine the question of the liability of the petitioner to profession tax after affording an opportunity to the Monastery to state all its contentions touching the matter. No interference was made with the assessments for the earlier periods since the approach to this Court in respect of the demands made for those periods was considered to be belated. 3. Thereafter, the 1st respondent by his proceedings evidenced by Ext. P1 dated 30121965 held that since the petitioner-Monastery is deriving income and such income is "taxable as per the Kerala Panchayat Act and. the Rules issued thereunder" the "income of the Monastery is assessable for the purpose of profession tax". The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Panchayat challenging the correctness of the order Ext. P1, passed by the 1st respondent. the Rules issued thereunder" the "income of the Monastery is assessable for the purpose of profession tax". The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Panchayat challenging the correctness of the order Ext. P1, passed by the 1st respondent. That appeal was disposed of by the Panchayat as per its proceedings evidenced by Ext. P2 dated 15-31966. The Panchayat held that the Monastery is a body corporate coming within the scope of the expression "person" and hence it is liable to assessment under S.69 of the Kerala Panchayats Act. On this ground it dismissed the appeal. A further appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Ernakulam 3rd respondent. That appeal was disposed of by the 3rd respondent by the order Ext. P3 dated 3110 1969, the operative portion of which reads: "The question has been examined. It may be true the Monastey does not exercise any profession, art or calling. It is a fast that the Monastery owns properties and derives income from such properties. Hence, the Monastery is liable to be assessed for profession tax as per S.69 (1) (b). In the circumstances, I hold the view that the Monastery also to be assessed for profession tax. The appeal petition is, therefore, dismissed." The petitioner has thereafter brought this writ petition seeking to quash Exts. P1 to P3. 4. The Panchayat's power to levy profession tax stems from S.69 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, the relevant portion of which reads: "69. Profession tax. (1) The profession tax shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed be levied every half year in every Panchayat area on (i) 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, art or calling or transacts business or holds any appointment, public or private (i) within such Panchayat area for not less than sixty days in the 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. (2) The profession tax shall be levied at such rates as may be fixed by the Panchayat not exceeding the maximum rates prescribed. (3) A person shall be chargeable under the class appropriate to his aggregate income from all the sources specified in sub-section (1) as being liable to the tax." Obviously, the present case is not covered by clause (i) of S.69 (1) because the petitioner is not a company. The provisions of clause (ii) of S.69 (1) will be attracted only in the case of a person who exercises a profession, art or calling or transacts business or holds any appointment, public or private, within the Panchayat area for not less than 60 days in the aggregate or outside such area but resides in the Panchayat area for not less than 60 days. There is yet another category covered by sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) which takes in persons residing in the Panchayat area for not less than 60 days in the aggregate and who are in receipt of any pension, income or investments. 5. According to the finding given by the 3rd respondent in Ext. P3, the petitioner-Monastery cannot be said to be exercising any profession, art or calling within the Panchayat area. Hence it will not come within the scope of sub-clause (a) of S.69 (1) (ii). He has however proceeded to hold that the Monastery is liable to be assessed to profession tax on the ground that it is covered by sub-clause (b) of S.69 (1) (ii) by reason of the fact that the Monastery owns properties and derives income from such properties. That the mere receipt of income from landed properties or from investments will not attract liability to profession tax, has been clearly laid down by this Court in the decision reported in D. H. Namboodiripad v. Executive Authority, Thekkumkara Panchayat (1970 KLT.1039) and K. V. Subhadra Kovilamma v. State of Kerala and others (1970 KLT. 586). In view of those pronouncements it is manifest that the reasoning given by the 3rd respondent in Ext. P3 for holding that the petitioner-Monastery is liable to be assessed to profession tax is vitiated by an error of law and cannot be sustained. 6. Counsel appearing for the Panchayat, however, attempted to support the legality of the assessment made under Ext. P3 for holding that the petitioner-Monastery is liable to be assessed to profession tax is vitiated by an error of law and cannot be sustained. 6. Counsel appearing for the Panchayat, however, attempted to support the legality of the assessment made under Ext. P1 by contending that the view expressed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats that the Monastery does not exercise any profession, art or calling is not correct. It was argued that since the petitioner-Monastery is admittedly owning some lands within the local limits of the Panchayat and is getting those lands cultivated through agents or servants, that activity constitutes "calling" and hence the liability to profession tax under S.69 (1)(ii) (a) is attracted. I have already referred to the uncontroverted averments in the writ petition that the petitioner- Monastery is a religious institution devoted solely to religious and charitable work and that besides prayer, meditation and religious services they are engaged only in the work of charity like conducting educational institutions and orphanages. While it is quite conceivable that even a religious or charitable institution may in some cases carry on some business or calling like the pursuit of agriculture etc. it will not be right to hold that merely because an institution like the petitioner-Monastery which is devoted entirely to religious and charitable activity also happens to own some land and is deriving some income by getting it cultivated, it is exercising the profession or the calling of agriculture. Every incidental activity engaged in by a person cannot be regarded as his calling. It cannot be ignored that various types of incidental activities may be engaged in by individuals as well as institutions which cannot in any true sense be regarded as constituting their profession or calling. If the test to be applied is merely as to whether such an activity is in fact carried on and whether it has resulted in some benefit, or gain, monetary or otherwise, then all such incidental activities will be liable to be brought within the expression "calling". That would not be a reasonable construction to be placed on that word occurring in S.69 (1) (ii) particularly regard being had to the fact that the source of power for the legislation in question is entry 60 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution dealing with taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments. That would not be a reasonable construction to be placed on that word occurring in S.69 (1) (ii) particularly regard being had to the fact that the source of power for the legislation in question is entry 60 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution dealing with taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments. In the context in which the expression "calling" occurs in the said entry it has, in my view, to be interpreted as meaning the principal occupation followed by a person for the purposes of earning his livelihood. 7. The 3rd respondent was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that the petitioner-Monastery cannot be regarded as exercising any profession, art or calling within the local limits of the Panchayat. 8. It follows from the above discussion that on the said finding recorded by the 3rd respondent the petitioner-Monastery ought to have been held by him to be not liable to assessment to profession tax under S.69 of the Act. The orders Exts. P1 to P3 will stand quashed and the original petition will accordingly stand allowed. The parties will bear their respective costs.