JUDGMENT Shambhu Prasad Singh J. Having lost in both the courts below, the plaintiff has filed this appeal before this Court. His suit which has been dismissed, was for declaration that the assessment of professional tax on him by the defendant-respondent no. 1, Banka Notified Area Committee, for the years 1960-61 to 1962-63 was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. He also claimed a relief for injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from realizing the said tax from him. Defendant respondent no, 2 is the Chairman of respondent no. I and the other defendant-respondents are its members. 2. The appellant who is a resident of Banka Notified Area Committee carries on business as commission agent of petrol and cement run in the name and style of Esso Co. and Dalmia Cement respectively within holding no. 180 of Banka town. The holding belongs to the appellant and its annual valuation is Rs. 400/-. According to the appellant, he holds no other business within Banka Notified Area and he was wrongly assessed to half yearly professional tax of Rs. 125/- for the aforesaid years on the basis of his being owner of houses and that the valuation of his place of business was Rs. 250/- per mensem. He avers that he could, if at all, be assessed to professional tax, it could be under schedule IV, serial no, 1 (c) read with section 150 A of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); the assessment being under schedule IV, serial no. 1 (b) of the Act was void, illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. Defendant-respondents 1, 2, 3, 5, and 11 contested the suit. They filed two sets of written statements, but averments in both the sets were identical. Their main plea was that the appellant besides being a commission agent owned several buildings within the notified area and derived considerable income as house rent and, therefore, could be validly assessed under schedule IV serial no. 1 (b) of the act. 4. They filed two sets of written statements, but averments in both the sets were identical. Their main plea was that the appellant besides being a commission agent owned several buildings within the notified area and derived considerable income as house rent and, therefore, could be validly assessed under schedule IV serial no. 1 (b) of the act. 4. The relevant part of section 150 A of the Act which provides for imposition of tax on professions, trades, callings, and employments runs as follows :- “When it has been determined that a tax shall be imposed on professions, trades, callings and employments, every person who exercises within the municipality, either by himself or by an agent or representative, any of the professions, trades, callings or employments specified in the Fourth Schedule and who is liable to pay such tax, shall take out a half yearly liecence and pay the tax assessed on him in pursuance of clause (ff) of sub-section (I) of section 82.” Serial no. 1 of the Fourth Schedule lays down that every licence shall be granted under one or the other of the clauses mentioned in the second column of the table given there under and these shall be paid half yearly from 1st April to 30th September and 1st October to 31st March, for the same a tax not exceeding the amount mentioned in that behalf In the third column of the table. Column no. 2 of serial no. 1 (b) of the table is as follows :- “Mill owner, merchant, banker, money lender, trader, dealer, owner or occupier of market, bazar, theatre or place of public entertainment, proprietor of news paper or press, printer, photographer, auctioneer, warehouse keeper (goladar), dyer and cleaner, goldsmith, silversmith, coppersmith, weaver, artisan, furniture dealer, tobacco, cigarette and biri manufacturer, broker (dalal) in jute, landed property grains, general merchandise, mica and coal, motor garage owner, shop keeper, order supplier, boarding house keeper, eating house keeper, druggist, chemist, owner or buses public carrier vehicle, taxi cabs (exceeding two), carriage (exceeding two), rickshaw (exceeding two) which ply on hire whose place of business is valued under this Act at……...” The above passage has been quoted from Part IV of the Bihar Gazette of November 11, 1953. Section 150A and Schedule IV were inserted in the Act by Bihar Act 32 of 1953 and the amending Act was published in the aforesaid Gazette. Section 150A and Schedule IV were inserted in the Act by Bihar Act 32 of 1953 and the amending Act was published in the aforesaid Gazette. In the book published by the State of Bihar containing all the enactments of the year 1953 of the Bihar Legislative Assembly “owner or houses” is mentioned for the words “owner of buses” in the above quotation from the Gazette. The trial court proceeded on the assumption that the expression used was “owner of houses” and it, therefore, held that the appellant could be assessed to professional tax under schedule IV, serial no. 1 (b) of the Act. It appears that the lower appellate court was aware that the expression was "owner of buses" and not "owner of houses", but it also confirmed the decree of the trial court as in its opinion the expression "owner" after "dealer" was wide enough to include owner of houses and thus the appellant was liable to assessment of professional tax under Schedule IV, serial no. 1 (b) as well. 5. At the time of final hearing of the appeal before us, the respondents lawyer reported no instruction. In the circumstances, the appeal had to be heard exparte. In view of the fact that there was discrepancy in the Bihar Gazette and the book published by the Government containing enactments of 1953 of the Bihar Legislative Assembly as to the exact provisions of serial no. 1 (b) of the Fourth Schedule, we issued notice on the Advocate General. Learned Government Advocate who appeared for the State in response to said notice informed us that the correct expression was "owner of buses" and not "owner of houses" as published in the aforesaid Bihar Gazette and there was a mistake in the said book published by the Government. In the Circumstances, it is manifest that the appellant can not be assessed to professional tax on the ground that serial no. 1 (b) of Schedule IV contains the expression "owner of houses". The question, therefore, which arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the expression "owner" after "dealer" in serial no. 1 (b) of the Fourth Schedule is wide enough to include owner of houses. In my opinion, the word “owner” after the word “dealer” in serial no, 1 (b) of the Fourth Schedule of the Act can not be interpreted to include owner of houses. 1 (b) of the Fourth Schedule is wide enough to include owner of houses. In my opinion, the word “owner” after the word “dealer” in serial no, 1 (b) of the Fourth Schedule of the Act can not be interpreted to include owner of houses. The expression used is "owner or occupier of market, bazar, theatre, or place of public entertainment." "Owner" has not been used to include and thus make liable to assessment of professional tax, owners of all kinds of properties. Under the aforesaid expression, owner only of market bazar, theatre or place of public entertainment has been made liable to assessment of professional tax. This is also apparent from the fact that the word "owner" has also been used at other places in serial no, 1 (b), such as "mill owner", "motor garage owner" and "owner of public carrier vehicle, taxi cabs (exceeding two) carriage (exceeding two) rickshaw (exceeding two) which ply on hire”. If the intention of the legislature would have been that the word "owner" after the word "dealer" was to include owners of all kinds of properties, they would not have used the word "owner" at three other places to make owner of mill, owner of garage and owner of buses etc. liable to assessment of professional tax. It is therefore, not possible to hold that, owner of houses as such is liable to assessment of professional tax under serial no. 1 (h) of the Fourth Schedule of the Act. 6. Sufficient materials are not available on the record of the case on the basis of which it can be said that the appellant could under serial no, 1 (c) of Schedule IV, be assessed to the amount of tax to which he has been assessed. The respondents in their pleadings also did not attempt to justify the assessment of tax on the ground that it was under serial no. 1 (c) of the Fourth Schedule; They wanted to justify the assessment on the ground that the appellant as owner of houses was liable to assessment of professional tax under serial no. 1 (b) of the Fourth Schedule of the Act. 7. The courts below have placed reliance on the fact that the appellant himself was a member of the assessment committee of respondent no. 1 and he signed the assessment against him in that capacity. 1 (b) of the Fourth Schedule of the Act. 7. The courts below have placed reliance on the fact that the appellant himself was a member of the assessment committee of respondent no. 1 and he signed the assessment against him in that capacity. The appellant was not the sole member of the assessment committee and, in my opinion, on the ground that he was a member of that committee and signed the assessment against him, it can not be held that he is estopped from challenging the assessment even though it is void, illegal and without jurisdiction. 8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The suit of the appellant is decreed to the extent indicated below. It is declared that the assessment of professional tax under serial no. 1 (b) of Schedule IV of the Act on the appellant as owner of houses for the years 1960-61 to 1962-63 is void, illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondents are also restrained from realizing from the appellant professional tax imposed upon him under serial no. 1 (b) of the Fourth Schedule of the Act for the aforesaid years. The appellant shall be entitled to his costs for the two courts below, but as the respondents did not contest the appeal at the time of final hearing before us, there will be no order as to costs so far this court is concerned. Mukherji, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.