SRINIVASA IYENGAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and according to the averments in the petition. it carries on business in the supply and repair of instruments required in the aircraft industry only in Bangalore where it has its registered office as well as its workshop. There is a specific averment that it has no other place of business anywhere in India or elsewhere. The first respondent, namely, the Cantonment board, St. Thomas Mount, Madras addressed a communication to the petitioner dated 25-1-1973 (Ex-A) informing it that it was doing contract work for Madras Flying Club, Minambakkam and therefore was assessable to profession tax and two demand bills for Rs. 50 each for the half year ending 30-9-1972 and 31-3-1973 were enclosed thereto. These bills have been filed as ext-B and 'c'. The petitioner wrote back saying that it was not carrying on any business transaction within the State of Madras or within the cantonment area and no contract work was being executed within those limits nor were any of its employees stationed within those limits. It was further stated that the Madras Flying club used to despatch some instruments for repair and overhaul to its place at Bangalore and they were being despatched by train or by other method of transport after the repairs or overhauling, In these circumstances it was stated that it was not liable to pay any profession tax. ( 2 ) IT transpires that notwithstanding such a reply reminders were being issued and the petitioner also protested against the demand and pointed out that there was no liability to pay any profession tax. In one of the letters written by the Cantonment board, a reference was made to the notification authorising levy of profession tax, a copy of which has been marked as Ext- 'j'. ( 3 ) IT is contended for the petitioner that there could be no liability even in terms of the notification Ex-J, and the petitioner is not transacting any business inside the Cantonment area and is not also exercising any profession, trade or calling within those limits and therefore the demand made is untenable. ( 3 ) IT is contended for the petitioner that there could be no liability even in terms of the notification Ex-J, and the petitioner is not transacting any business inside the Cantonment area and is not also exercising any profession, trade or calling within those limits and therefore the demand made is untenable. It transpires that in spite of the protest of the petitioner, the Cantonment Board moved the District Magistrate at Bangalore for recovery of the amount through, revenue process and accordingly, the tashildar (respondent-4) served a notice Ex- 'o' demanding the payment of Rs. 100, and intimating that on failure to do so, further proceedings would be taken to recover it as an arrear of land revenue. This notice is dated 17-10-1973, but was served on the petitioner only on 4-12-1975. In view of this development, the writ petition challenging this notice as well as the demand made by the Cantonment board was filed. ( 4 ) THE e respondents are not represented before this Court. However, a statement of objections has been sent to this Court by the Cantonment executive Officer. That statement bears the date 29-1-1976 wherein the main facts asserted by the petitioner are not controverted. However, it is maintained that the levy is in accordance with the notification referred to therein which is identical with the ext-J. ( 5 ) THE notification is quite clear that in order to become liable to pay profession tax the company must transact business inside the Cantonment limits, or persons must be exercising profession or trade inside the Cantonment limits. Clause (2) thereof also stipulates tha if a company transacts business or if a person exercises a profession etc. for sixty days in the aggregate in the cantonment or if a person being in receipt of a pension etc. , resides in the Cantonment for sixty days in any half year in the aggregate, such company or person would become liable for profession tax for such half year. From the above provisions in that notification, it is clear that carrying on business transaction inside the Cantonment area or exercising a profession inside the Cantonment area is a necessay pre-requisite for being liable to pay profession tax. From the above provisions in that notification, it is clear that carrying on business transaction inside the Cantonment area or exercising a profession inside the Cantonment area is a necessay pre-requisite for being liable to pay profession tax. The main averments made in the writ petition, namely that the petitioner is having its registered office at Bangalore and has a factory there and it has no other place of business elsewhere are not controverted. The actual transaction with the Madras flying Club is also not controverted. It transpires that the demand was made only because the, Madras Flying Club had in a letter given names and addresses of the contractors who were undertaking contract work for them and included the, petitioner as one o the contractors for repair of aircraft instruments etc, That communication, a copy of which has been marked as appendix 'a' to the statement of objections does not also indicate that the petitioner was transacting any business inside the Cantonment area. It is therefore dear that the imposition of profession tax and the demand made on the petitioner is not warranted by the notification permitting such levy and the demand made is clearly misconceived. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the demands made for professional tax against the petitionar under Exhibits 'b' and 'c' as well as the notice Exhibit 'o' issued by the Tahsildar are quashed. Parties shall, however bear their own costs. --- *** --- .