ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.— In these two writ petitions, petitioners are banking institutions. In writ petition No. 36339 of 2003, M/s. State Bank of Mysore, a subsidiary of State Bank of India is the writ petitioner and is an institution which is governed by the State Bank of India [Subsidiary Banks] Act, 1959 [for short 'subsidiary Act']. In writ petition No. 37366 of 2003, M/s. Vijaya Bank, a Nationalized Bank under the provisions of the Banking Companies [Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings] Act, 1980 [for short 'Acquisition Act, 1980'] and is identified under the provisions of the Acquisition Act, 1980 as a 'corresponding new bank' as defined in terms of Section 2[b] of the Acquisition Act, 1980. 2. Writ petitioners are before this court in the context of the liability fastened on them under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employment Act, 1976 [for short the 'Act']. 3. Though on facts, the position of the two petitioners slightly differs from one another and even in respect of the legal position they are governed by different enactments as referred to above, the main contention urged to get over any tax liability under the provisions of the Act being one and the same, namely, that there is no liability on the petitioners under the provisions of the Act for the reason that the charging Section i.e., Section 3 of the Act when read with the schedule does not create any liability on the petitioner - banks for the reason that the petitioner - banks are not named in the schedule as one of the entries in the schedule on whom the tax liability is fastened in terms of Section 3 of the Act and therefore these two writ petitions are considered together in this order. 4. The petitioners it appears were silently and willingly paying the tax liability under the Act till about the year 2003 when certain amendment was brought about to the definition of 'person' in terms of amending Act 7 of 2003 which saw an explanation being added to the definition of 'person' treating every branch of a firm, company, corporation or other corporate bodies, any society, club or association shall be deemed to be a person. 5. 5. The significance of this amendment of charging Section which creates a liability on every person in that with every branch of a corporate body also being treated as a person, the tax liability in terms of Section 3 of the Act read with the schedule went up to rope in all the branches of a corporate body also as 'person' and tax liability being multiplied by as many branches as the corporate body has as in the case of the petitioner-banks. 6. Section 2[h] defining 'person' in terms of the amending provision and Section 3 charging Section read with the schedule particularly entries 24, 25 and 69 as also explanations, particularly explanation - 6 which brought about a change for fastening an additional liability on the petitioners are all m under: 2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (h) "Person" means any person who is engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment in the State of Karnataka and includes a Hindu Undivided Family, firm, company, corporation or other corporate body, any society, club or association, so engaged but does not include any person who earns wages on a casual basis; Explanation: Every branch of a firm, company, corporation or other corporate body, any society, club or association shall be deemed to be a person. 3. Levy and charge of tax: (1) There shall be levied and collected a tax on professions, trades, callings and employments for the benefit of the State. (2) Every person who exercises any profession or calling or is engaged in any trade or holds any appointment, public or private, or is employed in any manner in the State, specified in the second column of the Schedule, shall be liable to pay to the State Government the tax at the rate mentioned in the corresponding entry in the third column of the said Schedule: Provided that no tax shall be payable by persons xxxxxx who have attained sixty-five years of age. Provided further that the levy and collection of tax from any person under this Section shall be subject to the restriction specified in Clause (2) of Article 276 of the Constitution. Provided further that the levy and collection of tax from any person under this Section shall be subject to the restriction specified in Clause (2) of Article 276 of the Constitution. Provided further that, no tax shall be payable by a person in respect of any year if the period during which he exercises such profession or calling or is engaged in the trade or holds the appointment or is employed does not exceed one hundred and twenty days in that year. Schedule [See Section 3(2)] Rates of tax on professions, trades, callings and employmen Sl No. Class of persons Rate of tax 24 Banking companies as defined in the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 Rs. 2500 per annum 25 Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in any profession, trade or calling Rs. 2500 per annum 69 Persons other than those mentioned in any the preceding entries who are engaged in professions, trades, callings or employments as the State Government may from time to time by Notification specify. Rs. 1000 per annum Explanation I. - Notwithstanding anything in this Schedule, where a person is covered by more than one entry in the Schedule the highest rate of tax specified under any of those entries shall be applicable in his case. Explanation II. - For purposes of determining the liability and the rate of tax in terms of Serial Number 15 in this Schedule, the higher number of workers and/or employees and/or employees at any time during the year shall be reckoned as the basis. Explanation III. - For the purposes of Serial No. 16 of this Schedule where the oil pump or service station is held on lease by a lessee, such lessee shall be deemed to be the person liable under the Act. Explanation IV. - No tax shall be levied under this Act on any firm except when it is engaged in any profession, trade or calling specified in Serial Numbers 2(a)(iii), 3(a)(iv), 5(iii), 6(a)(iii), 6(b)(iv), 6(b)(iv), 7(a)(iii), 8, 8(i), 10(iv), 11(ii)(b), 11(iii), 13(d), 15(iv), 16, 17, 18(a), 19(i), 20(b), 21, 22, 27(b), 29(a), 29(b)(i), 31, 32(b), 34, 37, 40, 41(a), 42, 43, 44, 45, 46(d), 47, 49(b), 51(a), 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 64 and 66 of the Schedule. Explanation V. - No tax shall be levied under this Act on any partner of a firm, which is engaged in any profession, trade or calling specified in Explanation N above. Explanation VI. - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Schedule, every branch of any self-employed assessee enumerated in any item of the Schedule shall be deemed to be a separate assessee for the purpose of levy of profession tax specified in the Schedule. 7. The authorities thought that such amendments brought about by the Act enabled them to levy tax on not only the main institution but also on each branch of the institution and raised demand on such premise. It is alarmed by such huge demand for payment of tax, the petitioners woke up to try and wriggle out of the liability and started searching for legal lacunae or grounds to get out of such liability and have thereafter come up with these two writ petitions not only contending that fastening such huge liability on the petitioner - banks which is a single legal entity is clearly unconstitutional for the reason that any liability on a single legal person beyond the limit permitted in terms of Sub-article [2] of Article 276 is not permitted and no state legislature can impose such tax beyond the amount permitted under Article 276(2) and therefore the liability calling upon the petitioners whether by way of amendment or even roping in branches or in any other manner so long as the total amount of tax required to be paid by the petitioners exceeds sum of Rs. 2,500/- per year, such demand is unconstitutional and seeking for quashing of such demands in excess of Rs. 2,500/- per year on the petitioners. 8. Petitioners have also taken up additional contentions that in fact there is no liability on them under the provisions of the Act on the premise that the petitioners - institutions are not institutions figuring in any of the entries occurring in the schedule to the Act as the liability is in respect of only such persons who are named in any one of the entry and not on persons not figuring in the entries in the schedule to the Act. 9. 9. The contention urged in this regard is that while the petitioners do not come under either entry 24 or 25 of the Schedule to the Act; that the petitioners are not banking companies as indicated by the respondents in their proposition notice to levy tax under the Act and what exactly is urged on this premise is that neither the petitioner is a banking company as defined in the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 [for short 'regulation Act'] nor a company even as defined in this very Act The definition of a 'banking company' as defined under Section 5[c] of the Regulation Act being in turn linked to the definition of Company' in terms of Section 5[d] of the Regulation Act which in turn leads to the definition as found in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, submission is that the petitioners being not even a company cannot be called as a 'banking company' within the meaning of Section 5[c] of the regulation Act. 10. On the other hand, attention is drawn to Section 5(da) of the regulation act which defines Corresponding new bank' which is again linked to the provisions of the Acquisition Act 1980 and the definition of 'subsidiary bank' is linked to the definition as stated in the subsidiary Act. These statutory provisions of Section 5 of the Regulation Act reads as under: 5. Interpretation - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context- (c) 'banking company' means any company which transacts the business of banking in India. Explanation. These statutory provisions of Section 5 of the Regulation Act reads as under: 5. Interpretation - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context- (c) 'banking company' means any company which transacts the business of banking in India. Explanation. - Any company which is engaged in the manufacture of goods or carries on any trade and which accepts deposits of money from the public merely for the purpose of financing its business as such manufacturer or trader shall not be deemed to transact the business of banking within the meaning of this clause; (d) "company" means any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956; and includes a foreign company within the meaning of Section 591 of that Act; (da) "corresponding new bank" means a corresponding new bank constituted under Section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), or under Section 3 of the Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980); (nd) "subsidiary bank" has the meaning assigned to it in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959; 11. When these two writ petitions were presented before this court, the focus was more on the Constitutional limitation placed on the state legislature in terms of Article 276(2) of the Constitution of India and to contend that the levy of professional tax on any person exceeding a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per annum is not permitted by Article 276(2) of the Constitution of India and therefore it is unconstitutional. It has been urged that the artificial definition of 'person' as defined under the Act by adding the explanation to Section 2(h) of the Act militates against the Constitutional provision and the petitioners had approached this court for relief in such state of affairs. It is also the case of the petitioners that there is no liability at all on them under the Act, as the charging Section -Section 3 of the Act - read with the scheduled to the Act does not fasten the liability on either of the petitioner. 12. It is also the case of the petitioners that there is no liability at all on them under the Act, as the charging Section -Section 3 of the Act - read with the scheduled to the Act does not fasten the liability on either of the petitioner. 12. While the following prayer a) issue an appropriate Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the Explanation to Section 2(h) of the Act inserted by the Amendment Act of 2003, with effect from 01.04.2003, as violative of Article 276(2) read with Article 367(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act in so far the petitioner bank and its branches are concerned; b) issue an appropriate Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash Explanation VI occurring at the end of the Schedule to the Act, inserted by the Amendment Act of 2003 with effect from 01.04.2003, as violative of Article 276(2) read with Article 367(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act in so far as the petitioner bank and its branches are concerned; c) issue a Writ of Prohibition or a direction in nature of a Writ of Prohibition restraining the respondents/their subordinate authorities from enforcing the collection of profession tax in pursuance of the notices issued on the various branches of the petitioner bank (sample notices issued in: a) No. CTO/S-3/2003-04 dated 06.07.2003; b) No. PTO: I:SMG:T:2003-04 dated 31.05.2003; c) No. PT/CTO/CHM/T/2003-04 dtd. 04.06.2003; d) No. PTO:I:Sagar: 2003-04 dtd. 20.06.2003; and e) No. CTO-U/K/PT/01-02/B did. 23.07.2003 enclosed as Annexure-A To E respectively) and restraining the respondents/their subordinate authorities from issuing notices on other branches of the petitioner, who have not been issued notices so far; d) issue such other Writ or Writs or directions which this Hon'ble Court deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the case; and e) direct the respondent to pay the costs of this writ petition. in WP No. 36339 of 2003 is sought for, an additional prayer for refund is sought for in WP No. 37366 of 2003. 13. On the petition being admitted, the respondents have been put on notice and they entered appearance through Ms Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Pleader and filed their statements of objections. in WP No. 36339 of 2003 is sought for, an additional prayer for refund is sought for in WP No. 37366 of 2003. 13. On the petition being admitted, the respondents have been put on notice and they entered appearance through Ms Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Pleader and filed their statements of objections. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the state government, it is contended, inter alia, that the petitioner themselves have admitted as pleaded in para-1 of their writ petitions that all existing banks come within the meaning of expression 'banking company' in so far as the petitioner in WP No. 37366 of 2003 is concerned, and in the light of such admission, it is not open to the petitioner in this petition namely Vijaya Bank to contend that it. is not liable to pay any tax under the Act Reference is also made to Section 51 of the Regulation Act, under which certain provisions of the Regulation Act are made applicable not only to the Subsidiary Act, but also to govern by any other statutory enactment notified and also notified banks particularly with reference to Section 7 of the Act, which reads as under: 7. Assessment of employer or person: (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that the return filed by any employer is correct and complete, it shall accept the return. (2) (a) If the assessing authority is not satisfied that the return filed by any employer is correct and complete, it shall serve upon the employer a notice requiring him to attend in person or through an authorised representative on a date specified in the notice and to produce accounts and papers in support of the return. (b) The assessing authority shall, on examination of accounts and papers, assess the amount of tax pay able by the employer. (c) If the employer fails to comply with the terms of the notice or if in the opinion of the assessing authority the accounts and papers are incorrect or incomplete or unreliable, the said authority, shall, after such enquiry as it deems fit or otherwise, assess the tax due to the best of its Judgment. (c) If the employer fails to comply with the terms of the notice or if in the opinion of the assessing authority the accounts and papers are incorrect or incomplete or unreliable, the said authority, shall, after such enquiry as it deems fit or otherwise, assess the tax due to the best of its Judgment. (3) If an employer has failed to get himself registered or being registered, has failed to file any return or a person has failed to get himself enrolled under Section 5, the assessing authority shall, after giving the employer or the person, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of making representation and after holding such enquiry as it deems fit or otherwise, pass an Order assessing the amount of tax due to the best of its Judgment. (3-A) When making an assessment under Sub-section (3), the assessing authority may also direct the employer or the person, as the case may be, to pay in addition to the tax assessed a penalty equal to the amount of tax assessed under Sub-section (3). (4) The amount of tax so assessed or the amount of penalty so levied shall be paid within fifteen days or receipt of the notice of demand from the assessing authority. (5) If within one month from the service of a notice of demand under Sub-section (4), the employer or person satisfies the assessing authority that he was prevented by sufficient cause from getting himself registered ort from fling the return under Section 6 or from getting himself enrolled under Section 5 as the case may be, the assessing authority shall cancel the assessment made under Sub-section (3) and proceed to make a fresh assessment in accordance with the provisions of this Section as the circumstances of the case may warrant. 14. It is urged that a combined reading of the Section 7 of the Act read with Section 51 of the Regulation Act and other provisions, makes it clear that the petitioner-banks also come within the purview of the Regulation Act It is also urged that as the contentions raised in the writ petitions are all now covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 12 VST 4S9 SC the writ petitions are straightaway to be dismissed. 15. 15. It is in the light of such factual pleadings, I have heard Sri G Sarangan, learned senior Counsel appearing for Ms. H. Vani, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Niloufer Akbar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 16. Sri Sarangan has drawn my attention to the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly the definition Section 2(h), defining 'person' and the explanation added by Act No. 7 of 2003 with effect from 1-4-2003, the charging Section 3, which creates a charge in respect of every person who is engaged in any profession or trade, callings or employment for the benefit of the State as specified in the schedule to the Act and also particular attention was drawn to the proviso to this Section. It is pointed out that in the schedule, there is no entry which can squarely cover the institutions of the nature of petitioners under any one of the enumerated entries now figuring in the schedule; that reliance placed by the respondents on entries 24 and 24 read with explanation to the schedule is also of no avail, as there is no basic liability at all on the petitioners to pay any tax and for driving home this point, particularly as in terms of entry 24, the liability is only on a bank as defined in the Regulation Act and under the entry No. 25, the liability is on a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Attention is also drawn to the relevant provisions of the Regulation Act and the Companies Act, 1956, To make home matters explicitly, it is urged that while even the residuary entry No. 69 does not in any way create a liability on the petitioners to pay any tax under the Act, for the reason that for creating such a liability, a notification should have been issued specifically naming the particular type of person/s on whom professional tax can be levied under Entry 69 and that having not been made use of and no notification having been issued in the name of either of the petitioner, until and unless, the petitioners are squarely and clearly brought within the scope of any one of the enumerated entries, there cannot be any liability under the Act 17. Referring to the provisions of the Subsidiary Act and the Acquisition Acts, the endeavour is to point out that the provisions of the Regulation Act themselves are not applicable and even the provisions of the Companies Act are also not applicable to the petitioners. It is for this reason, it is vehemently urged that the petitioners cannot be covered either under entry 24 or 25 of the schedule to the Act. 18. Sri Sarangan, learned senior Counsel would also seek to distinguish the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. [supra] by contending that when the petitioner-banks are not even limited companies and are not banking companies within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Regulation Act, assuming that the Supreme Court has upheld the artificial definition of 'person' as provided under the explanation to the definition Section in the Act, that will not make any difference to the petitioners, for the reason that the petitioners have no liability at all under the Act. Sri Sarangan would not however concede that the present writ petitions are covered by the said judgment in so far as the contention that so long as the tax levied on each branch, which is subsidiary to the main person, is up to or less than Rs. 2,500/- per annum, there is no violation of Article 276(2) of the Constitution of India. 19. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mohammed Mohammed Khan, AIR 1981 SC 1744 , particularly to para-23 of this judgment to contend that State Bank of Mysore, which is analogous to State Bank of Travancore [SBT], also a subsidiary to State Bank of India and in respect of SBT the Supreme Court had in this judgment ruled that the SBT is not a banking company within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Regulation Act and that ruling squarely applies to the case of the petitioner in WP No. 36399 of 2003 is concerned, and it is for this reason the Act is not applicable to this petitioner. 20. Reliance is also placed on the case of State Bank of Travancore and Others Vs. 20. Reliance is also placed on the case of State Bank of Travancore and Others Vs. Kayamkulam Municipal Council and Others, (2001) 9 SCC 257 , wherein the Supreme Court has followed its earlier view taken in the case reported in State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mohammed Mohammed Khan, AIR 1981 SC 1744 . 21. Reliance is also placed on the Pull Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Canara Bank and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, AIR 1982 Ker 1 to contend that the petitioner in WP No. 37366 of 2003 - Vijaya Bank - which is a corresponding new bank and on par with corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies [Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings] Act, 1969 [for short 'Acquisition Act, 1969'] is also not a company as defined in Companies Act, 1956 nor a banking company as defined in the Regulation Act, as it had been held so in this case in respect of Canara Bank, also coming within the expression of a corresponding nationalized bank, albeit under the earlier Acquisition Act 1969. It is also submitted that this view of the Pull Bench of the Kerala High Court was fully affirmed by the Supreme Court in the appeal by the Quilon Municipality in the case of Commissioner, Quilon Municipality and Another Vs. Canara Bank, Quilon and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 524 particularly para-3 of this affirming Order passed in appeal by the Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal. Para-3 reads as under: 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. 22. It is therefore urged that the view taken by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court having merged with the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the affirming appellate Order binds this court and it is urged that if the petitioner-bank is not even a company, it can neither be sought to be taxed under entry 24, which requires a banking company or even as any other company under Entry 25. 23. 23. Attention is also drawn to a later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. E.J. Joseph 77 Comp Cas 83 SC, wherein the Supreme Court had referred to its earlier decisions rendered in the case of Commissioner, Quilon Municipality [supra], followed and applied the view taken therein and disposed of the appeal of the SBT, which is to be noticed in the following words of the Supreme Court: ...The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by a Division Bench following the decision of the Full Bench of the said court in Mohammed Khan v. State Bank of Travancore 1978 KLT 262 , which held that the appellate bank is not entitled to claim the benefit of exemption contained in Clause (1), since it is not a banking company.... It is therefore urged that when there is no liability at all on the petitioners to pay any tax in terms of the charging Section under the Act, the petitioners cannot be called upon to pay tax even in respect of their main branches or trading, as one legal person, leave alone taxing their different branches also, as different persons. 24. On the other hand, appearing on behalf of the respondents, Ms Niloufer Akbar, learned AGA, would urge that in the first instance the plea in WP No. 37366 of 2003 as contained in para-1 itself is that it is a banking company and if the petitioner concedes its position that it is a banking company, it is not necessary for this court to examinee any further aspect. It is also urged that the contention that branches cannot be taxed as constituting independent 'persons', as, in such an event, it militated against the limitation imposed under Article 276(2) of the Constitution of India, is no more res integra, as it is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. [supra] and in the light of the admission made for liability as a banking company and the said judgment of the Supreme Court covers the liability on the branches of the banks as different persons, nothing is required to be examined by this court in these writ petitions and therefore submits that the writ petitions should be dismissed. 25. 25. Attention is also drawn to the provisions of Section 51 of the Regulation Act under which many of the provisions of the Regulation Act are made applicable only to the banks regulated under the Subsidiary Act but also other banks such as nationalized banks regulated by the two Acquisition Acts and it is therefore urged that it is not as though the petitioner-banks are not governed by the provisions of Regulation Act and when it is held that they are covered by the Regulation Act, even to the extent of some of the provisions, if not in its entirety, it cannot be pleaded that it is not covered by the provisions of the Regulation Act and for the reason that the provisions of the Act apply only to the banking companies and for such purpose attention is drawn to Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 reads as under: 7. Use of words "bank", "banker", "banking" or "banking company".- (1) No company other than a banking company shall use as part of its name or in connection with its business any of the words "bank", "banker" or "banking" and no company shall carry on the business of banking in India unless it uses as part of its name at least one of such words. (2) xxxx The argument is that the petitioner-banks having described themselves as banks carrying on business of banking in India, they are inevitably to be taken as banking companies, as otherwise it could not have used the word *bank' as indicated in Section 7 and when many of the provisions of the Act operate on the petitioner-banks, it is inevitable that they are banking companies, and if so they are squarely covered by entry 24 of the Schedule to the Act. 26. While these legal submissions are canvassed for pointing out the liability under the provisions of the Act in terms of the charging Section read with the schedule to the Act, it is urged in respect of other arguments viz., that giving artificial definition of 'person' to create the liability on a banking company over and above Rs. 2,500/- is violative of Article 276(2) of the Constitution of India, submission is that it is now squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. [supra]. It is therefore urged that the writ petitions should be dismissed. 27. 2,500/- is violative of Article 276(2) of the Constitution of India, submission is that it is now squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. [supra]. It is therefore urged that the writ petitions should be dismissed. 27. Let me first take up the contention with regard to the covering aspect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Karnataka Bank Ltd.'s case. While Sri Sarangan, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would seek to make a distinction of the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court, particularly by pointing out that the petitioner-banks are not limited companies and therefore the judgment rendered in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd., which is a limited company and a bank, cannot be made applicable to the present case etc., it is not the facts but the particular situation under which a ruling is given that are made applicable for calling in aid, it is the law laid down. On a perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd., it is clear that the Supreme Court has ruled that artificial definition of 'person' as given in the Andhra Pradesh Act, wherein also, an attempt was made to define each branch of a person viz., an institution also defined as a different person, is violative of Article 276(2) of the Constitution of India, as ultimately one single legal entity is called upon to pay or the State was seeking to levy more professional tax on one single legal entity than Rs. 2,500/- per annum was negatived and the validity of the legislation on such premise was not found to be wanting in the Supreme Court's judgment. In so far as this ruling is concerned, it does apply, but it may not be very relevant for the purpose of these writ petitions for examining the facts any further, for the reason it may not be necessary for this court to even go into this aspect of the matter, as in the instant case this question really does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I say so for the reason that even for treating a branch as a different 'person', the requirement basically is that there should be a liability created on the main in terms of the charging Section read with the schedule. If there is no charge on the main person in terms of the charging Section and the schedule, it matters very little whether they have branches or otherwise. 28. Though the writ petitions had been mainly entertained by this court in the context of the challenge based on the Constitutional limitation as envisages in Article 276(2) of the Constitution of India and that aspect is now squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. [supra] and in fact this court had once earlier on such premise disposed of the writ petitions as covered, the matter was restored to the board of this court on mentioning that there are other independent questions which require examination and also the question as to the liability on the petitioners in terms of the charging Section. 29. Though normally this court will not embark on finding out as to whether a particular assessee or person is liable for payment of tax in terms of the charging Section and particularly as it may involve several questions of fact and it is normally relegated to the authorities functioning under the Act to ascertain such questions, in the present case, firstly the writ petitions are examined on the question of liability under the Act in terms of charging Section also for the reason that it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that if there is no liability under the charging section, the authorities do not get jurisdiction to call upon the petitioners either to pay or to comply with any other requirements under the Act and secondly examination is confined only to legal aspects and no factual aspect is involved. There is absolutely no dispute on the factual aspects in respect of both the petitioners and particularly the petitioners being creations of statutory provisions and governed by the statutory provisions viz., Subsidiary Act and the Acquisition Act 1980. There is absolutely no dispute on the factual aspects in respect of both the petitioners and particularly the petitioners being creations of statutory provisions and governed by the statutory provisions viz., Subsidiary Act and the Acquisition Act 1980. As noticed in the discussion with reference to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and quoting relevant statutory provisions, while neither petitioners can be brought within the definition of a ^banking company' as defined in the Regulation Act, as entry 24 indicates that the liability under this entry is only in respect of the banking companies as defined in the Regulation Act, this entry is of no use to rope in the petitioners to any tax liability under the Act In so far as entry 25 is concerned, unless it is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, there is no liability under entry 25. The definition of 'companies' under the Companies Act, 1956 is to be found in Section 3 of the Act, which is either a company formed and registered under this Act or an existing company as defined in clause 2. 30. In so far as entry 25 is concerned, the liability is confined to companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. An existing company is not roped in under this entry. It is not in dispute on facts that the State Bank of Mysore, which is a subsidiary bank under the Subsidiary Act is not one registered under the Companies Act and so also Vijaya Bank, which is a corresponding new bank under the Acquisition Act, 1980, is not registered under the Companies Act, 1956. If neither of the petitioners is registered under the Companies Act, entry 25 of the Act is of no avail to fasten any tax liability on the petitioners. If the petitioners are out of the clutches of entries 24 and 25, the only other possible entry which can be roped in is residuary entry No. 69. But, for bringing in persons not covered under any one of the previous entries, the requirement is the State government may have to issue a notification specifying the particular person who is sought to be covered in terms of the notification. But, for bringing in persons not covered under any one of the previous entries, the requirement is the State government may have to issue a notification specifying the particular person who is sought to be covered in terms of the notification. It is not in dispute that the state government has not issued any notification specifying either the State Bank of Mysore or the Vijaya Bank as a person liable for payment of tax for the purpose of entry 69 of the schedule to the Act The respondents do not dispute that if the petitioners cannot be roped in under entry 24 and 25 and are not persons covered by any notification issued under entry 69, other entries figuring in the schedule to the Act are of no avail. In the sense that the petitioners are not sought to be brought within the scope of any other entry, as the attempt to justify the levy and collection of tax on the petitioners in terms of the charging Section fails in terms of entries 24 and 25 and even under entry 69 of the schedule to the Act, it has to be ruled that there cannot be any liability under the Act on the petitioners under the provisions of the Act as it stands. If so, there is no need for the petitioners to pay any tax under this Act. 31. Though in WP No. 37366 of 2003, filed by the Vijaya Bank, there is a prayer for refund of the professional tax already levied and collected, Ms H Vani, learned Counsel for the petitioners, in addition would seek that this court should direct refund of the court fee paid on the premise that each branch of the petitioner-bank is also liable to pay tax and court fee paid on such premise. What is urged is that the petitioner was compelled to pay court fee as the registry [of this court] insisted on such payment, though it was the stand of the petitioner that it is only one unit/person and there is neither any tax liability on the branches nor any need for making the payment of any court fee for each of the branch. In the case of State Bank of Mysore i.e. the petitioner in WP No. 36339 of 2003, though there is no prayer for refund of the tax paid, a request for refund of the court fee paid, which in respect of about 500 branches, is again renewed and it is prayed that this court may direct refund of the court fee paid in this case, treating the petition as a single petition. 32. Ms Niloufer Akbar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents, vehemently opposed refund of any court fee and points out that court fee is paid on the basis of the relief sought for and on the number of persons approaching the court; that as the petitioner had sought for relief in respect of each of the branches, it was proper at that time to insist payment of court fee on such basis, and prayer for refund of court fee cannot be entertained just because the petitioner has succeeded on the aspect of charging Section under the Act What is pointed out is that in so far as the liability on each branch is concerned, that being squarely covered by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. [supra], there is no scope for seeking refund of court fee solely on the premise that the branches were not liable to make payment of tax etc. 33. I am of the view that while the prayer for refund of the tax collected by way of professional tax for the earlier three years cannot be acceded to for the reason that the petitioners did not bring the dispute related to the liability for payment of tax as and when it had been levied and collected and on the other hand it voluntarily paid the tax, the matter was brought to this court only when the liability was sought to be fastened on each of the branches as a different person and therefore no case is made out for refund of tax paid under the Act. 34. In so far as the request for refund of court fee on the premise that each branch is different person is concerned, the request fails for the reason that the refund of court fee cannot be made depending on the success or failure of the case. 34. In so far as the request for refund of court fee on the premise that each branch is different person is concerned, the request fails for the reason that the refund of court fee cannot be made depending on the success or failure of the case. Refund of court fee is governed by the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act and the petitioners' request is not supported by any statutory provisions. Though it is urged that writ petition is an extraordinary jurisdiction, it is nevertheless a jurisdiction which has to be exercised in conformity with the statutory provisions and in the absence of any enabling provision for directing refund of any court fee, this court will not embark on issue of a writ of mandamus either for refund of court fee or the amount paid by way of tax under the Act. It is for this reason the prayer for refund of court fee is also rejected. 35. However, the petitioners succeed on the ground of there being no liability created on the petitioners for payment of any tax in terms of the charging Section read with the schedule to the Act and writ petitions are allowed to this extent. Respondents may take note of this legal position and act accordingly. 36. Rule made absolute.