Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this original petition is an assessee to profession tax under the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960. for short the Act, for doing business in the Alleppey Municipality. The grievance of the petitioner is against Exts P-7 and P-8 Ext. P 7 is the proceeding of the respondent-Municipal Commissioner dated 23 9 1974 rejecting the petitioner's return and placing the petitioner in class 'A' and assessing him to a profession tax of Rs 275/-. Ext. P-8 is the bill issued by the respondent under R.S, Schedule II of the Act. The question that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether the respondent can make an assessment to profession tax upon a person who is an assessee to income-tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 without reference to his income tax assessment for the relevant period. 2. The respondent issued Ext. P-1, bill to the petitioner calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 315/-towards profession tax for the half year ending 30- 9-1971. On receipt of Ext. P-1 the petitioner informed the respondent that the tax has been fixed in an arbitrary manner and is against the provisions contained in R.21 of Schedule II to the Act. It is the petitioner's case that he is an assessee to income-tax. But the respondent without revising the assessment issued Ext. P-2 demand notice dated 17 11972. Thereupon the petitioner challenged Ext. P-2 in OP. No 1930 of 1972 before this court. This court by Ext P-3 judgment dated 2131974 held that the petitioner can be assessed only under R.21(2) of the Taxation and Finance Rules contained in Schedule II to the Act. The notice of demand, Ext. P-2 was also quashed by this court. 3. After the disposal of the above original petition the respondent issued Ext. P-4 notice to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish a return showing the total profits and turnover of the business transacted by him within the Alleppey Municipality, for the half year ending 30-9-1971 In pursuance of Ext P-4 notice the petitioner filed Ext P-6 return. Ext. P-5 is the covering letter forwarding Ext. P-6. return. But the respondent by Ext. P-7 order rejected Ext P-6 return and estimated the income of the petitioner for the relevant half year at Rs. 20,000/- and assessed the petitioner to pay profession tax of Rs. 275/-. Ext. Ext. P-5 is the covering letter forwarding Ext. P-6. return. But the respondent by Ext. P-7 order rejected Ext P-6 return and estimated the income of the petitioner for the relevant half year at Rs. 20,000/- and assessed the petitioner to pay profession tax of Rs. 275/-. Ext. P-8 is the bill issued in pursuance of Ext. P-7 notice. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit justifying Exts. P-7 and P-8 and narrating the circumstances under which Ext. P-7 assessment was made. 4. R.21 of the Taxation and Finance Rules contained in Schedule II to the Act reads: "21. (1) Where a company or person transacts business in any half-year exclusively in the area 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 or agricultural income-tax or both is assessed on such company or person under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, for the year, comprising the half-year, one-half of the amount at which the profits and gains of such business are computed under S.8 of the Indian-Income Tax Act or one half of the amount at which the agricultural income tax is computed under S.5 of the Agricultural income-tax Act, 1950, for the purpose of assessing the income-tax or agricultural income tax or the sum of both such amounts; 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, as the Government may prescribe, of the turnover of the business transacted in the area or 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 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 business in the area of the municipality shall, for the purpose of levying profession-tax under this Act, be deemed to be the percentage prescribed under clause (b) of sub-rule (i) of the turnover of such business transacted in such area during the half-year or the corresponding half-year of the previous year as the case may be: Provided that in the case of a company or person assessable to income-tax the total profits earned by the company or person as disclosed by the income-tax assessment for the year comprising the half-year for which the profession tax is to be levied shall be divided in the proportion of the turnover of the business of the company or person in the Municipality and outside for purposes of assessment to profession-tax. (3) For the purpose of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) the turnover of business in any 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. Explanation: In determining the turnover of business under this sub-rule, (a) where the delivery of any goods on account of any purchase made by any company or person and the delivery on account of the sale thereof by the same company or person or both effected in the State only the latter transaction shall be take into account. Explanation: In determining the turnover of business under this sub-rule, (a) where the delivery of any goods on account of any purchase made by any company or person and the delivery on account of the sale thereof by the same company or person or both effected in the State only the latter transaction shall be take into account. (b) Where the delivery of any goods on account of any of any purchase made by any company or person is effected in any place outside the State and the delivery on account of sale thereof by the same company or person is effected in any place in the State, the latter transaction shall be take ininto account and (c) Where the delivery of any goods on account of any purchase made by any company or person is effected in any place in the State and the delivery on account of the sale thereof by the same company or person is effected in any place outside the State, the former transaction shall be taken into account." It is clear from R.21 that is the case of an assessee to profession tax under the Act who is also an assessee to income-tax under the income-tax Act, the income of the assessee in the half year in question for purposes of levying profession tax under the Act will be one half of the amount at which the profits and gains of his business are computed under S 90 of the Indian Income-tax Act for the purpose of assessing the income-tax. In this case, it is clear from Ext. P3 judgment that the petitioner is assessed to income-tax. In that case, the respondent has no other go but to assess the petitioner to profession tax on the basis of the income returned and accepted for the purpose of assessment to income-tax. The question of turnover arises only for the purpose of apportioning the assesee's income when the assessee has his place of business outside the Municipality also. For reasons not known, this is not the basis on which Ext. P-7 order is passed in this case. When the assessee is also an assessee to income-tax the assessment to profession tax under the Act has to be on the basis of the income returned and accepted for the assessment of income-tax and cannot be on any other basis. For reasons not known, this is not the basis on which Ext. P-7 order is passed in this case. When the assessee is also an assessee to income-tax the assessment to profession tax under the Act has to be on the basis of the income returned and accepted for the assessment of income-tax and cannot be on any other basis. This cardinal point involved in the matter has been overlooked by the respondent. According to me, in the case of an assessee who is assessed to income-tax also no question of estimating the income of the assessee by the respondent arises. In this view of the matter, Ext. P7 proceedings of the respondents clearly against the provisions contained in R.21 of the Taxation and Finance Rules in Schedule II to the Act. Hence I set aside Ext. P7 proceedings. Ext. P-8 having no legs of its own to stand has to go and it is also set aside. The respondent is free to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law. But the same, if any, should be made within six months from today. 5. Before parting with this case, I add a word about P-5 and Ext. P-6 submitted by the petitioner in this case. The petitioner's case in O.P. No. 1930 of 1972 which was disposed of by Ext P3 judgment was that he is an assessee to income-tax and hence he can only be assessed under R.21 of the Taxation and Finance Rules. In that case, when he received Ext. P-4 notice there is no reason why he did not forward a copy of the income-tax assessment order for the relevant period also along with Ext. P-6. Even if this was not done, the respondent cannot overlook the provisions of R.21 of the Taxation and Finance Rules. 6. In the result, the original petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.