Skip to content


Gulab Chitra Mandir, Mahoba Vs. Municipal Board, Mahoba and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. W.P. No. 512 of 1976
Reported in(1977)6CTR(All)170
AppellantGulab Chitra Mandir, Mahoba
RespondentMunicipal Board, Mahoba and ors.
Excerpt:
- - 2. counsel for the petitioner has urged that the imposition of tax is bad as no sanction was obtained by the prescribed authority as contemplated under s. counsel for the respondent however produced before us the record of the municipal board hamirpur and after going through the same we are satisfied that there is no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 5. the result is that all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner fail......1975 imposing cinema tax and notices dated 14th february 1975 and 31st march 1975 issued by the municipal board, mahoba, district hamirpur in pursuance of the aforesaid notification.2. counsel for the petitioner has urged that the imposition of tax is bad as no sanction was obtained by the prescribed authority as contemplated under s. 133(i) of the u.p. municipalities act. this point was not taken specifically in the writ petition except for a vague allegation that the procedure prescribed in ss. 131 to 135 of the act was not followed. counsel for the respondent however produced before us the record of the municipal board hamirpur and after going through the same we are satisfied that there is no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. it is true that.....
Judgment:

R. M. Sahai, J. - This Writ Petition is directed against the Notification dated 18th January 1975 imposing Cinema tax and notices dated 14th February 1975 and 31st March 1975 issued by the Municipal Board, Mahoba, district Hamirpur in pursuance of the aforesaid Notification.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the imposition of tax is bad as no sanction was obtained by the prescribed authority as contemplated under S. 133(I) of the U.P. Municipalities Act. This point was not taken specifically in the Writ Petition except for a vague allegation that the procedure prescribed in Ss. 131 to 135 of the Act was not followed. Counsel for the respondent however produced before us the record of the Municipal Board Hamirpur and after going through the same we are satisfied that there is no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is true that respondent has not been able to produce any specific letter received from the Prescribed Authority according its sanction to the resolution passed by the Municipal Board for the levy of tax. But from the copy of the draft rules which were sent by the Prescribed Authority to the Municipal Board it is clear that the sanction as required under S. 133 was accorded by the Prescribed Authority. Moreover admittedly a Notification under S. 135 had been issued and the effect of this Notification under S. 135(3) is that it is conclusive proof that the tax the provisions of the Act.

3. The next argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that the rate of tax was Rs. 15/- per show which is confiscatory in nature. The petitioner has furnished details in the petition and in the rejoinder affidavit and according to him the net profit after meeting the expenditure would be very small. Even if we accept the figures given by the petitioner the mere fact that the margin of profit to the petitioner is very small, is no ground, in our opinion, on hold that the tax in confiscatory in nature. The petitioner has placed reliance in tis connection on a decision reported in Nizam Ali vs. Municipal Board Fatehpur. The ratio of the decision is not disputed. But this does not apply to the facts of the case.

4. It was next submitted that the tax was unreasonable. Reliance was placed in this connection on Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Delhi, and Western India Theatres Ltd. vs. Cantonment Board Poona. Admittedly there is no restriction as to the extent to which the petitioner can raise the rate of Cinema tickets. Moreover even accepting what has been stated in the writ petition, the rate of Rs. 15/- per show will work out to be 4 or 5 np. per ticket. This, in our opinion, cannot be said to be unreasonable. We have held in Tharoo Mal vs. Puran Chand Pande that such an imposition does not suffer from the vice of unreasonableness.

5. The result is that all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner fail.

6. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. But there shall be order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //