Judgment.- The appellant representing the Vadakkarapathy Panchayat filed a complaint under section 69 of the Kerala Panchayats Act against the first respondent-accused for non-payment of profession tax for the 2nd half of 1974-75 and the first half of 1975-76. 2. Consistent with the practice in the Panchayat, a request was made to the Taluk Supply Officer, Chittur, for a list of employees working under him. The list Exhibit P-13 and the further particulars shown in Exhibit P-3 letter of the Taluk Supply Officer made out that the first respondent was appointed Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies Check-post, Ozhalapathy, that he took charge on 3rd September, 1974 and was relieved from the post on 11th August, 1975. Demand notices were sent to the first respondent calling upon him to pay the profession tax for the periods already referred to. Exhibits P-4 and P-5 are the counterfoils of such notices and Exhibits P-6. and P-7 are the acknowledgments thereof. The first respondent sent Exhibits P-10 and P-12 replies denying his liability to pay profession tax. He admitted that he was appointed Deputy Tahsildar in the Ozhalapathy Civil Supplies Check-post, but stated that he had no occasion to work at Ozhalapathy as he was sent on deputation to places outside the Panchayat area. On default being made in the payment of tax, prosecution was launched before the Judicial Magistrate, Chittur, after complying with the formalities prescribed under the Kerala Panchayats Act. The Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class. Chittur, acquitted the first respondent holding that he was not liable to pay profession tax. The appeal is preferred challenging the order of acquittal. 3. The facts are not disputed. It is common case that the first respondent was appointed Deputy Tahsildar at the Civil Supplies Check-post at Ozhalapathy on 3rd September. 1974 and that he was relieved of that appointment on 11th August, 1975. It is also not disputed that after his appointment, he had not worked as Deputy Tahsildar, Ozhalapathy Check-post but that he was deputed to work outside the Panchayat. But it has been made out from the testimony of D.W. 1 that the first respondent was receiving salary as Deputy Tahsildar, Ozhalapathy Check-post during the period 3rd September. 1974 to 11th August, 1975. 4. But it has been made out from the testimony of D.W. 1 that the first respondent was receiving salary as Deputy Tahsildar, Ozhalapathy Check-post during the period 3rd September. 1974 to 11th August, 1975. 4. The contention put forward on behalf of the appellant is that inasmuch as the first respondent was holding an appointment during the relevant period within the Vadakkarapathy Panchayat area, he was liable to pay profession tax to that Panchayat. In other words, the stand taken by the appellant is that for assessment to profession tax, it is enough that a person holds an appointment within the Panchayat. It is not necessary that he should either reside or work within the Panchayat. 5. The provision relating to assessment of profession tax is contained in section 69 of the Kerala Panchayats Act. The relevant portion of the said section reads: “69 (1). Profession tax.-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. (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. * * * * (5) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to render a person who resides within the local limits of one local authority and exercises his profession, art or calling, or transacts business or holds any appointment within the limits of any other local authority or authorities liable to profession tax for more than the higher of the amounts of tax leviable by any of the local authorities. In such cases the Government shall apportion the tax between the local authorities in such manner as they may deem fit and the decision of he Government shall be final: Provided that where one of the local authorities concerned is a cantonment authority or the port authority of a major port, the decision of the Government shall be subject to the concurrence of the Central Government”. The profession tax is a tax on income. It is clear from section 69(1)(ii)(a) that every 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 will be liable to pay profession tax irrespective of his place of residence. Residence within the Panchayat area for the stipulated period is material only in cases where the person concerned works outside the Panchayat area and where the assessment is based on receipt of pension or income from investment. A person who resides in one Panchayat and works for gain or holds appointment in another Panchayat, is liable to profession tax in both the Panchayats. In such cases, section 69(5) provides for apportionment of tax between the two Panchayats or the Panchayat and the concerned local body. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the first respondent held an appointment within the Panchayat area and that he was receiving his salary from that appointment. His case, therefore, clearly fell under section 69(1)(ii)(a) and he he is liable to assessment. 6. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the first respondent held an appointment within the Panchayat area and that he was receiving his salary from that appointment. His case, therefore, clearly fell under section 69(1)(ii)(a) and he he is liable to assessment. 6. Reference may also be made to rule 4 of the Kerala Panchayats (Profession tax) Rules (1963) which says that a person shall be deemed to have held an appointment within a Panchayat area if he has an office or place of employment within that Panchayat area. From the admitted fact that the first respondent was receiving his salary in his capacity as Deputy Tahsildar, Ozhalapathy Check-post, he must be held to have had an appointment and to have received income within the Panchayat. The first respondent has not put forward a case that he paid profession tax to any other Panchayat or local body and that he was not liable to pay profession tax to the Vadakkarapathy Panchayat on account of such payment. 7. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the reasons given for the order of acquittal are not sustainable. The order is therefore, set aside. The case is sent back to the Judicial Magistrate of the IT Class, Chittur, for fresh disposal according to law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.