(1) THE question for consideration before the Kerala High court was whether a nationalised bank is a company as defined in the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116 (the Act). A full bench of the High court on the interpretation of Section 3(8 of the Act answered the question in the negative. These appeals by the Quilon Municipality is against the judgment of the full bench of the High court. (2) THE question decided by the High court is relevant in the context of the levy of profession tax under the Act. If the bank is held to be a company under the Act, the incidence of taxation is higher. (3) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We have been taken through the judgment of the High court. The High court has elaborately dealt with various aspects arising out of the interpretation of Section 3(8 of the Act. We find no infirmity in the High court judgment. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein. (4) WHILE granting special leave this court, initially, granted stay of the operation of the impugned judgment of the High court. The stay order was, later on, vacated and as a consequence the appellant-municipalities were required to refund the excess profession tax recovered from the respondent- banks. Learned counsel for the parties are not in a position to say as to whether the excess tax has been refunded to the respective banks or not. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, specially that the municipality is a public utility body, we direct that in case the municipality has not already refunded the collected tax amount, it shall not be liable to refund the same. (5) THE appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.