Carrying on trade within the State requires more than incidental in-State activity; profession tax liability failed on these facts.

Liability to profession tax arose only if a person carried on trade within the State, directly or through an agent, and the inquiry turned on the nature of the business and the totality of activities at the place concerned rather than any single universal test. The respondent had no shop, office, branch, or agent in Punjab; orders were accepted in Delhi and goods were dispatched from there. Inspection and collection of price in Punjab were merely incidental to supply and did not amount to carrying on trade in the State. On those facts, the respondent was not liable to be assessed to profession tax in Punjab.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was carrying on trade within the State of Punjab so as to attract liability to profession tax under the State taxation enactment.

Analysis: Liability under the Act arose only if a person carried on trade, by himself or through an agent, within the State. The respondent had no shop, office, branch, or agent in Punjab. Orders were received and accepted at Delhi, and the goods were despatched from there, while inspection and collection of price within Punjab were only incidental steps connected with the supply of goods. The relevant inquiry depends on the nature of the business and the totality of the activities at the place concerned; no single decisive test is universal. On these facts, the in-State activities were merely ancillary and did not amount to carrying on trade within Punjab.

Conclusion: The respondent was not carrying on trade within the State of Punjab and was not liable to be assessed to profession tax there.

---