Actual assessment requirement defeats retrospective tax disqualification and nominee property attribution under the statute.

A disqualifying profession-tax assessment under Proviso (B) depended on the actual date of assessment within the two years immediately preceding 1 October 1937, not on the period to which the tax related; a retrospective assessment for an earlier period therefore did not trigger the bar. Under Proviso (C), actual assessment of the individual concerned was required, and property assessed only in the wife's name could not be treated as the petitioner's assessment merely because the properties were said to belong to him. On that reasoning, the disqualification was negatived and the matter was remitted for disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a retrospective profession-tax assessment made after 1 October 1937, but relating to an earlier period, attracted the disqualification under Proviso (B) to Section 3(ii) of Madras Act IV of 1938; (ii) Whether the petitioner could be treated as assessed to property-tax so as to fall within Proviso (C) to Section 3(ii) on the footing that properties assessed in the wife's name really belonged to him.

Issue (i): Whether a retrospective profession-tax assessment made after 1 October 1937, but relating to an earlier period, attracted the disqualification under Proviso (B) to Section 3(ii) of Madras Act IV of 1938.

Analysis: The language of Proviso (B) made the relevant criterion the fact of being assessed within the two years immediately preceding 1 October 1937. Section 137-B of the Madras City Municipal Act was held to concern the machinery of levy for retrospective assessments and not to deem the date of assessment to fall within the period to which the tax related. The wording of the proviso was treated as plain and incapable of being read as referring to the taxable period instead of the actual date of assessment.

Conclusion: The retrospective assessment did not disqualify the petitioner under Proviso (B); the finding of disqualification on that ground was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could be treated as assessed to property-tax so as to fall within Proviso (C) to Section 3(ii) on the footing that properties assessed in the wife's name really belonged to him.

Analysis: Proviso (C) required actual assessment of the individual concerned. A mere interest in property standing in another's name was insufficient. Rule 7 of the Act was noted as addressing cases where the assessment register was not up to date, but it did not alter the requirement that the individual himself must have been assessed. The assessment in the wife's name could not be treated as the petitioner's assessment merely because the properties were said to be covered by his mortgage.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not disqualified under Proviso (C).

Final Conclusion: The revision petition succeeded, the disqualification was negatived, and the matter was remitted to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with the ruling.

Ratio Decidendi: A disqualifying assessment under the statute depends on the actual assessment of the person concerned within the prescribed period, and a retrospective assessment or assessment in another person's name cannot be substituted for that statutory requirement.

---