JUDGMENT U.S. Srivastava, J. - The facts, which have given rise to this petition, are these. The Petitioner is resident of town Kheri pergana and tahsil Lakhimpur, district Lakhimpur. His case is that he does not own any property yielding any income nor does he carry on trade or profession or earn any income within the limits of Town Area Kheri. On the 19th of November, 1966 the Petitioner came to know for the first time that he had been assessed to an amount of Rs. 260/- as circumstances and property tax for the year 1966-67 when he received a demand notice for the same. The Petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 23rd September, 1967. He thereupon filed the present petition praying for the quashing of the assessment in relation to the year 1966-67 and also prayed for quashing of the order dated 23rd September, 1967, being the order passed by the opposite-party no 2 to the petition, namely, Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhimpur-Kheri in the appeal preferred by the Petitioner before him. When the petition came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court on the 30th of November, 1970, the Petitioner placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Town Area Committee Sirsaganj district Mainpuri v. N.L. Churaman 1966 AWR 214 . The learned Counsel for the opposite parties then contended that this decision needed reconsideration. He also relied on certain passages in the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pandit Ram Narain Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1957 SC 18 . The case was then referred by the Bench to a Full Bench of five Judges and that is how the matter has come before us. 2. The material facts are not in dispute between the parties. The Petitioner admittedly does not carry on any business, trade or profession within the limits of Town Area Kheri and has for several years been carrying on business in the territories comprised in the kingdom of Nepal. He only resides there and the question therefore that arises for consideration in the case is whether in the circumstances he can be assessed to circumstances and property tax by the Town Area, Kheri wherein he resides although no income may be accruing to him from any business or trade carried on in the said Town Area. 3. He only resides there and the question therefore that arises for consideration in the case is whether in the circumstances he can be assessed to circumstances and property tax by the Town Area, Kheri wherein he resides although no income may be accruing to him from any business or trade carried on in the said Town Area. 3. The liability to pay Town Area's circumstances and property tax arises under the provisions of Section 14(1)(f) of the U.P. Town Areas Act, hereinafter called the Act. It lays down that a Town Area Committee may impose "a tax on persons assessed according to their circumstances and property not exceeding such rate and subject to such limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed." The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 39 Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2)(i) of the Act made "United Provinces Town Areas Circumstances and Property Tax (Assessment and Collection) Rules" to regulate the imposition, assessment and collection of circumstances and property tax imposed under the Act. Rule 3(1) of these rules provides that the tax: may be imposed on any person residing or carrying on business within the limits of the Town Area: Provided that such person has so resided or carried on business for a total period of at least six months in the year of assessment. According to the Explanation attached to the rule, "taxable income" means "gross income accruing within the limits of the town area" and the words "carrying on business" means "the carrying on of any trade, profession, calling or other practice or activity which yields...income but do not include service under Government or a local body." Under Rule 2 the tax is imposed in two separate parts, (1) on his circumstances and (2) on the property, if any, owned by the assessed person and the aggregate of the sums so determined on both the courts constitutes the total amount payable as circumstances and property tax. 4. 4. The contention of the Petitioner is that since taxable income has been defined in the Explanation appended to Rule 3(1) made by the State Government as meaning gross income accruing within the limits of the Town Area and as no income accrued to the Petitioner within the limits of the Town Area as he was not carrying on any trade or profession or business or any other activity which yielded income to him he was not liable to the tax to which he was assessed. The contention on behalf of the opposite parties, however, is that the circumstances and property tax is leviable on a person's financial status and a person is liable to the same if he resides within the limits of a Town Area although he may be receiving income from business outside the Town Area. A similar question came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court at Allahabad in a second appeal in the case of Town Area Committee Sirsaganj District Mainpuri v. N.L. Churaman (Supra). In that case a suit had been brought by certain teachers employed in the Intermediate Colleges of Sirsaganj and in connection with their employment they temporarily resided within the limits of the Town Area, Sirsaganj in the district of Mainpuri. They did not own any property yielding income nor did they carry on any trade or profession or earn any income within the limits of the Town Area. The two colleges in which these teachers were employed were situated outside the limits of the Town Area. The Town Area Committee levied u/s 14(1)(f) of the U.P. Town Areas Act circumstances and property tax. The teachers claimed in the suit that they were not liable to be assessed to the circumstances and property tax but the Committee assessed tax on them for the assessment year 1954-55. They claimed that the assessment of the tax was illegal and beyond the powers of the Committee and hence they filed a suit for declaration that the assessment of the tax was illegal and beyond the Committee's powers and for a permanent injunction restraining the Town Area Committee from realising the tax from them. The suit was contested by the Town Area Committee. The suit was contested by the Town Area Committee. It admitted that the teachers in question lived in the Town Area in connection with their employment and that as they resided and earned income within its limits they had been rightly assessed to the tax and were not entitled to any relief. In the statement of the Town Area Committee's Counsel Under Order X of the CPC it was admitted that the Colleges in which the teachers in question were employed were situated beyond the limits of the Town Area, that they did not own any immovable property within the limits except that they resided within the limits and occupied immovable property as tenants within the Town Area and that the only activity that they did was serving as teachers in the said Colleges. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the income from the teaching could not be said to accrue to the teachers within the limits of the Town Area merely because they resided within its limits as the Colleges in which they were employed were situated outside the limits of the Town Area. An appeal against the decision of the trial court also failed before the District Judge who held that as the teachers did not own any property or carry on any trade within the limits of the Town Area, the income from the teaching accrued to them not at their residence but in the Colleges situated outside the limits of the Town Area. In second appeal in this Court the matter originally came up for hearing before a single Judge who referred it to a Division Bench because of the importance of the question involved in it and the Division Bench then referred it to a Full Bench. The Full Bench, if I may say so with most profound respect, in a judgment characterised by great thoroughness and sound reasoning, held that considering the facts of the case in their true perspective the teachers had neither income yielding circumstances nor immovable property within the limits of the Town Area and therefore the amount of tax to be imposed upon them was nil. It was observed that the taxable income on which alone the tax can be based is income accruing within the limits of the Town Area vide Explanation I to Rule 3. I respectfully agree with the said observations. 5. It was observed that the taxable income on which alone the tax can be based is income accruing within the limits of the Town Area vide Explanation I to Rule 3. I respectfully agree with the said observations. 5. Explanation I appended to Rule 3 aforesaid, in my opinion, clinches the issue and with great respect I think that the Full Bench has correctly held that the taxable income on which alone the tax can be based is income accruing within the limits of the Town Area. The same view was taken by a Bench of this Court in Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Company Ltd. Vs. Town Area and Others, AIR 1957 All 433 . It was observed in this case in para. 12 of the judgment at page 435- The rules framed u/s 39 of the U.P. Town Areas Act, however, appear to have limited the scope of the terms 'circumstances and property' as used in Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act to a considerable extent. Under these rules the other aspects of a man's property or financial status have been left untouched. It is only his gross income accruing within the limits of the Town Area that has to be taken into account. It was further observed that the gross income is the income which a person receives from his property or business and that income has been called his taxable income. If it is less than Rs. 200/-, no tax can be imposed upon him. If it exceeds the minimum of Rs. 200/- then the liability to pay tax arises subject, however, to a ceiling of Rs. 250/- and the tax imposed cannot exceed that amount. Finally the Bench held that in view of these rules the circumstances and property tax which can be imposed u/s 14(1)(f) of the Act is practically speaking a tax on the Assessee's income received from his properties situated in or business carried on in the Town Area. With these observations I respectfully agree. 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondents referred to certain observations in a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra). He particularly invited attention to para. 10 of the judgment in which it was observed thus: A tax on 'circumstances and property' is a composite tax and the. 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondents referred to certain observations in a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra). He particularly invited attention to para. 10 of the judgment in which it was observed thus: A tax on 'circumstances and property' is a composite tax and the. word 'circumstances' means a man's financial position, his status as a whole depending, among other things, on his income from trade or business. Far from militating against the principle that in considering the circumstances of a person his income from trade or business within the Town Area may be taken into consideration, the decision approves of the principle. These observations, in my opinion, are hardly of any assistance to the Respondents because actually what was decided by their Lordships in this case was that Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the U.P. Town Areas Act does not say in express terms that residence within the Town Area is a necessary condition for the imposition of the tax. Explanation I to Rule 3 referred to earlier by me in the judgment did not come up for consideration before their Lordships. Besides, in the case before their Lordships the affected persons were actually carrying on business within the limits of the Town Area. It was only the validity of Rule 3 that was questioned and that argument was negatived by their Lordships. All that was emphasised in the case was that, residence within the limits of the Town Area was not a sine qua non for the imposition of a tax Under Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. 7. It was then argued on behalf of the Respondents that Explanation I to Rule 3 aforesaid has to be read along with Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 which lays down that no tax shall be imposed on any person whose total taxable income is less than Rs. 200/- per annum and according to the Respondents' counsel, this rule does not place a limitation that the income should accrue within the limits of the Town Area. The further contention is that the Explanation is really in the nature of an exception to the effect that if the income accruing within the limits of the Town Area is less than Rs. The further contention is that the Explanation is really in the nature of an exception to the effect that if the income accruing within the limits of the Town Area is less than Rs. 200/- per annum he shall not be taxed and does not lay down that if a person is a resident within the limits of the Town Area, his income accruing outside the limits of the Town Area shall not be assessed to the; circumstances tax. I am unable to agree. To place such an interpretation would be nothing short of doing sheer violence to the language employed in the rule. In Phool Chand Mistri v. The Town Area Committee Sasni 1958 AWR 224 Oak, J. as he then was, held that the Explanation appearing in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the rules aforesaid means that it is to be utilised for purposes of Sub-rule (2) as well. According to the learned Judge, when Sub-rule (2) is read in the light of this Explanation appearing in Sub-rule (4), Sub-rule (2) would read somewhat as follows: No tax shall be imposed on any person whose gross income accruing within the limits of the Town area is less than Rs. 200/- per annum. This case, in my opinion, is a complete answer to the argument advanced on behalf of the Respondents. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter which has to be considered. The proviso added to Rule 2 of the rules aforesaid lays down that nothing shall render it irregular to assess a person on only one of the two counts aforementioned if he does not fulfil the conditions for liability in respect of that count on which he is not assessed. In the instant case the impugned order contained in Annexure 1 to the petition does not specify the count on which the tax had been assessed and as such, levy of a composite tax on property and circumstance was not legally correct. There seems to be force in this contention also urged on behalf of the Petitioner. 9. In my opinion the petition must succeed on the ground that the Full Bench decision in Town Area Committee v. N.L. Churaman (supra), which is fully determinative of the question involved in this petition, lays down correct law and does not need reconsideration. 10. There seems to be force in this contention also urged on behalf of the Petitioner. 9. In my opinion the petition must succeed on the ground that the Full Bench decision in Town Area Committee v. N.L. Churaman (supra), which is fully determinative of the question involved in this petition, lays down correct law and does not need reconsideration. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I would allow this petition and quash the impugned order of assessment relating to the Petitioner for the year 1966-67 as also the order passed in appeal by the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhimpur-Kheri dated 23rd September, 1967 contained in Annexure No. 1. In the circumstances of the case, however, I would direct parties to bear their own costs. Gur Sharan Lal, J. 11. I have read the judgment of brother U.S. Srivastava, J. and agree with him that the law laid down by the Full Bench in Town Area Committee, Sirsaganj v. N.L. Churaman (supra) does not need reconsideration and that on the basis of that law this writ petition must be allowed though the parties should be made to bear their own costs. I shall however add a few words of my own 12. The facts of the case are simple. The Petitioner Haji Nazir Ahmad is a resident of Town Area, Kheri (opposite party No. 1) and carries on business in Nepal. He does not carry on any business in the said Town Area nor has he any income yielding property in that Town Area. He was however assessed by the Town Area Committee to circumstances and property tax and an appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kheri (opposite party No. 2). He thereupon filed this writ petition in this Court to get the assessment and the appellate order quashed. He relies upon the aforesaid Full Bench decision in support of his contention that since no income accrues to him within the limits of Town Area, Kheri, assessing him to circumstances and property tax is un-warranted and illegal. 13. He thereupon filed this writ petition in this Court to get the assessment and the appellate order quashed. He relies upon the aforesaid Full Bench decision in support of his contention that since no income accrues to him within the limits of Town Area, Kheri, assessing him to circumstances and property tax is un-warranted and illegal. 13. According to the decision in the Full Bench case Town Area Committees, Sirsaganj v. N.L. Churaman (supra), aforesaid, the liability of a person to pay the circumstances and property tax as levied under the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 arises either from residence, or from carrying on business, within the limits of a Town Area and if no income accrues to him from either his circumstances or his property within the Town Area or such total income is below Rs. 200/- then no circumstances and property tax can be imposed on the person. It is obvious that on an application of the law laid down in this Full Bench case, the Petitioner would not be liable to any circumstances and property tax. The contention on behalf of Respondent Town Area, Kheri however is that the liability to circumstances and property tax arises from either residence within the limits of the Town Area or carrying on business within the same limits and if the first condition is fulfilled in the case of a person then there would be liability on him to be taxed even if he is carrying on business outside the limits of the Town Area and even if he has no income yielding property within the limits of the town area. His circumstances will include his income from business carried on outside the limits of the town area. The only exemption will be in respect of a sum of Rs. 200/- accruing as income within the limits of the concerned Town Area. The argument in favour of this contention will be presently mentioned after quoting, for convenience, the relevant provisions of law governing the matter. 14. Section 14 of the U.P. Town Areas Act specifies six kinds of taxes which a Town Area Committee may impose. One of these taxes is mentioned in Clause (f) in the following words: (f) A tax on persons assessed according to their circumstances and property not exceeding such rate and subject to such limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed. 15. One of these taxes is mentioned in Clause (f) in the following words: (f) A tax on persons assessed according to their circumstances and property not exceeding such rate and subject to such limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed. 15. The section makes the power of taxation subject to any general rules or special orders of the State Government in that behalf. Clause (f) quoted above additionally provides that the maximum rate for circumstances and property tax is also to be specified in the rules to be framed by the Government and that the rules made lay down other limitations and restrictions. The relevant rules in this connection are Rules 2 and 3 of the rules framed by the Government. They are as follows: 2. The tax shall be assessed on every person on whom it is imposed, in two separate parts, namely (1) on his circumstances and (2) on the property, if any, owned by him and the aggregate of the sums so determined on both the counts shall constitute the total composite amount payable by him as circumstances and property tax: Provided that nothing shall render it irregular to assess a person on only one of the two counts aforementioned if he does not fulfil the conditions for liability in respect of that count on which he is not assessed. 3. (1) the tax assessed on the circumstances of an Assessee may be imposed on any person residing or carrying on business within the limits of the town area: Provided that such person has so resided or carried on business for a total period of at least six months in the year of assessment. (2) No tax shall be imposed on any person whose total taxable income is less than Rs. 200 per annum. (3) The rate of the tax shall not exceed one anna in a rupee on total taxable income. (4) The total amount of tax assessed on any person shall not, in any year, exceed a sum of Rs. 250/-. Explanation-(i) For purposes of this rule 'taxable income' means gross income accruing within the limits of the town area. (ii) The words 'carrying on business' means the carrying on of any trade, profession, calling or other practice or activity which yields or is capable of yielding income but do not include service under Government or a local body. 16. 250/-. Explanation-(i) For purposes of this rule 'taxable income' means gross income accruing within the limits of the town area. (ii) The words 'carrying on business' means the carrying on of any trade, profession, calling or other practice or activity which yields or is capable of yielding income but do not include service under Government or a local body. 16. From Rule 2 it will appear that circumstances and property are to be considered separately for the purpose of living of tax and the total of the sums worked out on the two (unless only one is found taxable) shall make up the amount payable as circumstances and property tax. Rule 3 deals with that portion of the circumstances and property tax which is to be assessed on the circumstances. It lays down the limitations and restrictions on that tax. Sub-rule (1) of the rule shows that there must be either residence within the limits of the Town Area or carrying on business within the said limits' to make a person liable to circumstances and property tax. In addition, there must have been such residence or carrying on of business for a total period of at least six months in the year of assessment. Under Sub-rule (2) there is however an exemption from the imposition of tax on any person whose total taxable income is less than Rs. 200/- per annum. It means that though the basic requirements for liability to circumstances and property tax may exist but a minimum of total taxable income has been fixed for levying the tax, such minimum being Rs. 200/-. Sub-rule (3) fixes the maximum limit for the rate of tax. The explanation at the end of Rule 3 is then significant. It is in two parts. The first part is relevant for the purposes of the controversy under discussion. 'Taxable income' under Explanation (i) has been defined to mean gross income accruing within the limits of the Town Area. The qualifying words 'accruing within the limits of the town area' have a restrictive effect and show that income which is to be taken into account for levying the tax on circumstances must accrue within the limits of the Town Area. However, the contention on behalf of the Respondent Town Area is that this part of the explanation is relevant only for the purposes of the exemption provided Under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. However, the contention on behalf of the Respondent Town Area is that this part of the explanation is relevant only for the purposes of the exemption provided Under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. Inserting the definition in Explanation (i) in Sub-rule (2), that sub-rule will read: No tax shall be imposed on any person whose total gross income accruing within the limits of the Town Area is less than Rs. 200/- per annum. The argument on behalf of the Respondent Town Area is that Sub-rule (2) as above expounded does not restrict the total taxable income to income accruing within the limits of the Town Area and it has merely the effect of exempting the income accruing within the limits of the Town Area and falling short of Rs. 200/- from taxation. In other words, income wherever accruing will be taken into account but if income accruing within the limits of the town area is less than Rs. 200/-, then such income will be excluded from the total income for calculating the tax. But if the income within the limits of the town area is Rs. 200/- or more, then that income too is to be added to the other income to make up the total assessable income. This argument is to my mind wholly unsustainable. Reading Sub-rule (2) as above expounded by itself alone, it may possibly and as the most be open to argument that if the gross-income of a person accruing within the limits of the town area is less than Rs. 200/- then no tax will be imposed at all but that if the said income is Rs. 200/- or more, then the whole income of the person whether accruing within the limits of the town area or outside will be taken into account in assessing the tax. But when we look into Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 and substitute therein too for 'taxable income' the definition thereof in Explanation (i), we find that the same sub-rule provides that the rate of tax shall not exceed one anna in a rupee on the gross income accruing within the limits of the town area. This means the tax will be levied only on the income accruing within the town area. Thus even the above possible argument is ruled out, let alone the argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent town area which is otherwise also illogical. This means the tax will be levied only on the income accruing within the town area. Thus even the above possible argument is ruled out, let alone the argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent town area which is otherwise also illogical. Again, it follows that the tax will be levied only on the gross income accruing within the limits of the Town Area and not outside. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 does not provide for the exemption of any particular income from taxation. It provides for a person's total exemption from liability to be taxed if his total taxable income, that is, gross income accruing within the limits of the town area concerned, is less than Rs. 200/-. Such was the interpretation made by the Full Bench in the case Town Area Committee, Sirsaganj v. N.L. Churaman (Supra). The Full Bench also considered as to what the word 'accrue' meant and it was held that the said word had been used in Rule 3 in contradistinction to the word 'receive' and it was immaterial for the purpose of levying of circumstances and property tax that the Respondents in that case who were teachers in intermediate College of Sirsaganj outside the Town Area were temporarily residing within the limits of the Town Area, Sirsaganj in connection with their employment. The salaries they were receiving were not regarded as income accruing within the limits of the Town Area by reason of their bringing their salaries to their places of residence. In the instant case no controversy has been raised in regard to the meaning given to the word 'accrue' by the Full Bench and the only contention is that once a person comes within the clutches of the taxing authority by reason of either residence within the limits of the Town Area or carrying on business within those limits, his whole income including income derived from carrying on business outside the town area limits or from property will become liable to tax. 17. 17. In connection with the contention just mentioned above our attention has also been invited to the observations of S.K. Das, J. while speaking for the Supreme Court in deciding the case Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra) trial: "a tax on 'circumstances and property' is a composite tax and the word 'circumstances' means a man's financial position, his status as a whole depending, among other things, on his income from a trade or business." I do not see how the meaning given to 'circumstances' in the above quoted observation helps the Respondent in the face of the restrictive provisions in Rule 3 that the income from trade or business accruing within the limits of the town area is alone to be taken into consideration for taxation purposes. The import of the term 'circumstances' may be very wide but for taxing purposes there is no bar to only that part of it being made liable as is accountable to income from trade or business carried on within the limits of the taxing town area. There is a principle also behind this limitation. If a person resides in one town area and carries on business in another town area then, in the absence of this limitation, he will be doubly taxed on his 'circumstances' in both the town areas, which will obviously be unfair. With the limitation operating, he can be taxed in one town area only on account of the said trade or business. The case of property will be similar. If he possesses property in the town area where he resides and carries on business in another town area, he can not be taxed in both the town areas on that property. In the Supreme Court case aforesaid the Appellant resided in the town area of Mainpuri and carried on the business of plying a motor bus on hire. His bus passed through the town of Karhal and he had a booking office there for issuing tickets to passengers who orded his bus in that town. In the Supreme Court case aforesaid the Appellant resided in the town area of Mainpuri and carried on the business of plying a motor bus on hire. His bus passed through the town of Karhal and he had a booking office there for issuing tickets to passengers who orded his bus in that town. On circumstances and property tax being imposed on him by the Town Area Committee of Karhal on the ground that he carried on business in the aforesaid manner within the limits of Karhal Town Area, he challenged the assessment and denied his liability to be taxed on the ground that he was not residing within the limits of Karhal Town Area-The Supreme Court held that residence was not sine qua non for the imposition of the tax and the liability could also arise from the fact of the Appellant carrying on business as aforesaid within the limits of Karhal Town Area. It will thus appear that the decision in Ram Narain's case, is also of no help to the Respondent since it did not contain anything which if considered, could have led to a different conclusion than that arrived at by the Full Bench in the case of Town Area Committee, Sirsaganj v. N.L. Churaman (Supra). 18. After the said Supreme Court case this Court decided in another case, Phool Chand Mistri v. Town Area Committee, Sasni (Supra), also that no tax shall be imposed on any person whose gross income accruing within the limits of the town area is less than Rs. 200/- per annum even though his income as a whole is well over Rs. 200/- per annum, that is to say where the income mostly accrued outside the limits of the town area and the income within the town area is less than Rs. 200/-. Reference has also been made to the decision in Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Company Ltd., Etawah v. Town Area Jaswant Nagar (Supra) in which the Division Bench which decided the case took notice of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision in Ram Narain's case. The point which arose for decision in the case under discussion was the legality of the circumstances and property tax imposed by Town Area, Jaswant Nagar. The point which arose for decision in the case under discussion was the legality of the circumstances and property tax imposed by Town Area, Jaswant Nagar. But in his judgment Srivastava, J., relying on the observations of Malik, C.J. in the Full Bench case District Board of Farrukhabad v. Prag Dutt 1948 AWR 346 and the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Ram Narain's case, about the import of circumstances and property tax, observed: Generally speaking, therefore, a tax on circumstances and property is a tax on the Assessee's financial status as well as on his property. In judging the financial status or property it is possible to take into account the income he receives from his property, trade or business, but this is only one of the various considerations that can be kept in view. It is possible for a man to have a taxable financial status even if he has no income. 19. This general observation about the meaning of circumstances is again of no help to the Respondent for the same reason as has been stated above about the observations of the Supreme Court as to the meaning of 'circumstances'. The taxation has been restricted by Rule 3 to income accruing within the limits of the concerned town Area. Again, the taxation has been related to income and not merely possession of property and so it will not matter for the purposes of the tax if generally it is possible for a man to have a taxable financial status even if he has no income, as in the case of the Wealth Tax. 20. In the result I shall allow the writ petition as proposed by brother U.S. Srivastava, JJ. K.B. Srivastava, J. 21. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments prepared by my brothers U.S. Srivastava and Gur Sharan Lal, JJ. 22. The relevant provisions of law which can resolve the controversy are contained in Section 14(1)(f), U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 and Rule 3(1) read with Explanations 1 and 2 made u/s 39 of that Act. These were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Company Ltd, Etawah v. Town Area Jaswant Nagar (Supra) and it was held that it is only the gross income accruing within the limits of the Town Area that has to be taken into account. These were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Company Ltd, Etawah v. Town Area Jaswant Nagar (Supra) and it was held that it is only the gross income accruing within the limits of the Town Area that has to be taken into account. V.G. Oak, J. (as he then was) took the same view in Phool Chand Mistri v. Town Area Committee Sasni (Supra). The Full Bench decision in Town Area Committee, Sirsaganj v. N.L. Churaman (Supra) confirmed the interpretation that had been earlier put on these provisions in the two previous cases. The decision in all these three cases is a correct one and does not require reconsideration. I may add that in construing fiscal statutes or provisions and in determining the liability of a subject to tax, one must have regard to the strict letter of the law as no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature. 23. The re-opening of this catera of decisions on account of the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra) is also not called for, as the short point decided by their Lordships was whether residence within a Town Area is necessary for the imposition of the tax u/s 14(1)(f) and there was no occasion for considering the full import and implications of the Explanations to Rule 3. 24. I, therefore, agree with the order proposed by my brothers, U.S. Srivastava and Gur Sharan Lal, JJ. Om Prakash Trivedi, J. 25. I have seen the judgment of brother U.S. Srivastava, J. I agree and have nothing to add. Jagmohan Lal, J. 26. I agree and have nothing to add to what has been stated by brothers U.S. Srivastava and Gur Sharan Lal Srivastava, JJ. in their judgments. By The Court 27. We allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order of assessment relating to the Petitioner for the year 1966-67 as also the order passed in appeal by the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhimpur-Kheri dated 23rd September, 1967 contained in Annexure No. 1. In the circumstances of the case, however, we direct parties to bear their own costs.