(1) THOUGH several contentions were raised in these appeals, it is sufficient to refer only to one submission upon which they can be disposed of. We shall state the facts in State Bank of Travancore v. Kottayam Municipal Council. The facts in all other appeals are identical in material particulars. (2) THE Travancore Bank Limited was incorporated under the Travancore Companies Regulation, IX of 1114. On the enactment of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, which was brought into force with effect from 1-1-1960, a new bank called State Bank of Travancore (appellant herein) was constituted under the provisions of the said Act and the undertaking of the Travancore Bank Limited was vested in the newly-constituted bank. (3) UNDER the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116 (1941), profession tax was levied by Section 91. The rates of tax were provided by Rule 16 of the Second Schedule to the Act. The Rule reads as follows: "Class Half-yearly income Rs Maximum half-yearly tax Rs Chs I More than 21,000 275 0 10 III -do-150 but not more than 300 0 14 Provided that a company whose half-yearly income is more than rupees twenty-one thousand shall notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other rule, pay in addition to the maximum half-yearly tax of rupees two hundred and seventy-five an additional half-yearly tax on such excess calculated at the rate of one rupee per hundred rupees or part thereof." (4) THE quantum of profession tax thus depended upon the amount of half-yearly income derived by a person or a company subject to a maximum ofRs275. The proviso to Rule 16, however, made a special provision applicable to companies alone. To them, the maximum limit of Rs 275 did not apply. On every one hundred rupees or a part thereof in excess of Rs 21,000, additional tax was levied at the rate of one rupee, for each half year. The Travancore District Municipalities Act also defined the expression "company" in the following words: " Company means a company as defined in the Travancore Companies Act, 1114 and includes any firm or association carrying on business in Travancore whether incorporated or not and whether its principal place of business is constituted in Travancore or not." Travancore Bank was thus a company and was paying profession tax in accordance with the proviso to Rule 16. (5) IN the year 1960, the Kerala Legislature enacted the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960. Rule 19(1) of the Taxation and Finance Rules in Schedule II to the Act provided for continuance of the profession tax at a rate higher than Rs 250 in cases where the profession tax was being levied at such higher rate in the financial year immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution of India. Rule 19(1) along with its proviso reads as under: "19. (1) The cases into which companies and persons shall for the purposes of assessment to the profession tax, be divided and the maximum half-yearly tax leviable on each class shall be as follows: Class Half-yearly income Maximum half-yearly tax 1 More than Rs 15,000 Rs 125 30 IX -do- Rs600 but more than Rs1200 300 Provided that if in the financial year immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution of India any municipality was imposing profession tax at a rate higher than two hundred and fifty rupees per annum and continued to levy the tax at such higher rate immediately before the commencement of this Act, such municipality may continue to levy profession tax at such rate." (6) A reading of the proviso to Rule 19 shows that it merely continued the levy of profession tax at a higher rate if it was being so levied prior to the Constitution. Applying this proviso it could have been said that the appellant Bank is liable to pay the profession tax at the same higher rate as it was paying in the financial year immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution. But the appellant Bank submits that it is not a "company" within the meaning of the Travancore District Municipalities Act and, therefore, is not governed by the proviso to Rule 16 of the Second Schedule to the Travancore Act read with the proviso to Rule 19(1) of the Second Schedule to the Kerala Municipalities Act. This argument was no doubt rejected in the judgment under appeal holding that if not a company, the appellant is "an association carrying on business, whether incorporated or not" within the meaning of the definition of "company" in the Travancore Act. It is, however, brought to our notice that a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has taken a contrary view in Canara Bank v. State of Kerala. It is, however, brought to our notice that a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has taken a contrary view in Canara Bank v. State of Kerala. The Full Bench held that a.bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 is not a "company" within the meaning of the Travancore District Municipalities Act but only a "person". The said decision has been affirmed by this Commr., Quilon Municipality v. Canara Bank. This Court has accepted the reasoning and conclusion of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in its entirety. In our opinion, the principle of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court is applicable equally to a bank constituted under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959. Both the enactments, i.e., the 1970 Act considered by the Full Bench and the 1959 Act concerned herein are Acts made by Parliament providing for constitution and establishment of new banks. Once this is so, it must be held that the appellant (constituted on and with effect from 1-1-1960) is not a "company" within the meaning of the Travancore District Municipalities Act and, therefore, is not liable to pay profession tax at the higher rate prescribed in the proviso to Rule 16 of the Second Schedule to the Travancore District Municipalities Act read with Rule 19(1) of the Taxation and Finance Rules contained in Schedule II to the Kerala Municipalities Act. It will no doubt be liable to pay the tax as a "person", i.e., subject to the ceiling of Rs 250 (which ceiling was later raised to Rs 2500 with effect from 20-12-1988). (7) THE appeals are accordingly allowed. (8) IN the judgment of this Commr., Quilon Municipality the following direction was made with respect to the refund of tax already collected by the Municipalities: "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. 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." (9) WE are of the opinion that the very same direction should follow in these cases as well. Accordingly, it is directed that the tax which had already been collected up to this date from the appellants shall not be refunded to them. However, with effect from 1-4-1996, the appellant Banks shall be taxed as "persons" in the matter of levy of profession tax. (10) NO costs.