Judgment.- This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Third Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in C.C. No. 151 of 1977 on the file of his Court. The appellant is the complainant, Gram Panchayat, Nathayyapalem, represented by its Executive Officer, and the respondent is the accused in the case. 2. The Gram Panchayat filed a complaint against the accused under section 72 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act (herein-after referred to as “the Act”) read with Rules 34 (1) and (2) and 41 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) alleging that the accused, who is working as the Chief Erection Engineer in B.H.P.V. Ltd., Visakhapatnam, willfully failed to pay the profession-tax due for the year 1975-76 and that collection of the profession tax was found to be impracticable by distraint of his moveable property. The accused pleaded that he is a member of the defence personnel and that, therefore, he was personally exempt from paying the profession tax as provided in Regulation 288 of the Defence Service Regulations. Accepting the plea of the accused, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. 3. Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Gram Panchayat, contends that Regulation 288 of the Defence Service Regulations does not apply to the case of the accused in so far as under the Regulation the defence service personnel are exempt from paying only taxes imposed by municipalities and not the taxes imposed by Gram Panchayats. 4. The short question for consideration in this appeal, therefore, is whether the defence service personnel are exempt from paying the profession tax levied by a Gram Panchayat. 5. To appreciate the contention, it may be necessary to notice the relevant provisions of law. 6. Section 3 of the Municipal Taxation Act (XI of 1881) reads: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment ‘for the time being in force, the Central Government may, by an order in writing, prohibit the levy by a Municipal Committee of any specified tax payable by any person subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957, or the Air Force Act, 1950, who is compelled by the exigencies of military, naval or air force duty to reside within the limits of a municipality.” 7. Section 2 defines “Municipal Committee” as under: “In this Act ‘Municipal Committee’ includes a Municipal Corporation or a body of Municipal Commissioners constituted by or under the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force.” 8. Section 4 provides: “So long as any order made under section 3 prohibiting the levy of a tax on any person mentioned in that section remains in force, the Central Government shall be liable to pay to the Municipal Committee mentioned in the order the amount which otherwise would have been payable to such Committee by such person: Provided that the Central Government shall not be liable to pay any sum in respect of any horse which such person is bound, by the regulations of the service to which he belongs, to keep.” 9. Regulation 288 of the Defence Service Regulations reads as follows: “288. (A) A person subject to the Army Act (XLVI of 1950)/the Navy Act, 1957/ the Air Force Act. 1950. who is compelled by the exigencies of Army/Navy/Air Force duty to reside within the limits of a municipality or a cantonment, is exempt from the taxes of the following kind: (1) Municipal or cantonment taxes on salaries. (2) Municipal or cantonment taxes on professions, trades, callings, offices or appointments. (3) Municipal or cantonment taxes on animals or vehicles in respect of — (a) * * * * (b) * * * * These loss caused to the Cantonment Boards/Municipal Committees/Councils by the above exemption to Service Personnel shall, however, be made good from the Defence Services Estimates except in respect of any horse which a service person is bound, by Regulations of the Service to the exemption of municipal taxes provided which he belongs, to keep. (B) Municipal/Cantonment taxes or Army/ Navy/Air Force buildings or on buildings hired for authorised purposes- (C) Licence-fee chargeable from Army washerman under sub-section (4) of section 210 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. * * * *” 10. Sri Subrahmanyam contends that Regulation 288 is a notification issued under section 3 of the Municipal Taxation Act and that it applies only to taxes levied by a Municipal Committee as defined in the Act and not to taxes levied by a Gram Panchayat. * * * *” 10. Sri Subrahmanyam contends that Regulation 288 is a notification issued under section 3 of the Municipal Taxation Act and that it applies only to taxes levied by a Municipal Committee as defined in the Act and not to taxes levied by a Gram Panchayat. under the Act is a Municipal Corporation or a body of Municipal Commissioners constituted under the Municipalities Act and that a Gram Panchayat cannot be construed as a Municipal Committee within the meaning of section 2 of the Act. According to the appellant’s learned Counsel the exemption provided under Regulation 288 applied only to municipal taxes and not to taxes levied by 11. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent, contends that under Regulation 288 applies not only to the taxes imposed by a Municipal Corporation or a Body of Municipal Commissioners constituted under the Municipalities Act, but also to the taxes imposed by the Gram Panchayats. It is argued that municipal taxes specified in the Regulation are taxes levied by any municipal body and not necessarily the Municipal Corporation of a city or town. 12. In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 61, at page 945, it is provided that; “The word ‘municipal’ is variously defined as, belonging to a city, town, or place having the right of local Government; belonging to or affecting a particular State or separate community; pertaining to a city or a community within a State, possessing rights of self-Government; of or pertaining to a city or corporation having the right of administering local Government pertaining to a municipality; pertaining to corporate or local self-Government; pertaining to local self-Government; self-governing; that which belongs to a corporation or a city. While the term ‘municipal’ is frequently used in referring to self-governing city or town and in this sense is defined in Municipal Corporations, it is not always used in the limited sense of applying to cities, towns, or villages. It has a broader meaning, a more extensive or extended meaning. It’s application has been extended to include the internal Government of the State; and it is in legal effect the same as public or Governmental as distinguished from private. It is sometimes construed as intending to distinguish public political bodies from corporations of a quasi public nature. It may also mean independent’; local; particular.” 13. It’s application has been extended to include the internal Government of the State; and it is in legal effect the same as public or Governmental as distinguished from private. It is sometimes construed as intending to distinguish public political bodies from corporations of a quasi public nature. It may also mean independent’; local; particular.” 13. In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 62 at page 64, it was stated as follows: “A village has been said to be defined by the law generally as a municipality. An incorporated village is a municipal corporation; and villages have been held, in general terms or with reference to particular statute, to be municipal corporations of the lowest grade, although a village may differ materially from a municipal corporation like a city. Villages are also held to be voluntary corporations or public corporations, and not quasi municipal corporations.” 14. Merely because Nathayyapalem is a village and is not a municipality under the Municipalities Act, it cannot be said that it is not a Municipal Corporation. The provisions of the Gram Panchayats Act, under which the Nathayyapalem Gram Panchayat has been created, constitute the Panchayat as a self-governing body and the taxes imposed under the Act arc the taxes levied by a Municipal Committee within the meaning of section 2 of the Municipal Taxation Act. “Municipal Tax” envisaged in Regulation 288 is a broad concept taking in its ambit the tax levied by any municipal body and not necessarily the Municipal Corporations or Municipalities or Cantonment Boards of cities and towns. Under the circumstances, therefore, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate is eminently justified and does not call for any interference. 15. Drawing my attention to a notification of the Government of Karnataka, the appellant’s learned Counsel contends that, in so far as no similar notification was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the accused, who is working in the State of Andhra Pradesh, cannot claim any exemption under Regulation 288 of the Defence Service Regulations. 15. Drawing my attention to a notification of the Government of Karnataka, the appellant’s learned Counsel contends that, in so far as no similar notification was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the accused, who is working in the State of Andhra Pradesh, cannot claim any exemption under Regulation 288 of the Defence Service Regulations. No doubt, the Government of Karnataka issued a notification exercising the powers conferred on it by section 29 of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act (XXXV of 1978) exempting the members of the Defence Service from payment of tax under the provisions of that Act; but that does not mean that the defence personnel in the State of Andhra Pradesh or other Stages are denied the exemption under Regulation 288, when their case is directly covered by the Regulation, which is a valid Regulation issued in pursuance of section 3 of the Central Act XI of 1881. 16. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.