INDIRA RANI DEVI Vs. NAGAR PALIKA PURANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges a notification dated 12-4-1980 issued by the Government of U. P. whereby the rules regarding the levy of show tax on cinema houses situate within the territorial limits of Nagar Palika, Puranpur have been published. A copy of the notification has been annexed to the writ petition as annexure 4. The petitioner further prays that the Nagar Palika be restrained from realising show tax and octroi duty on the import of films from the petitioner.

(2.) We have heard Sri V. B. Upadhya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 i.e. Nagar Palika, Puranpur. None appeared for the respondent No. 2 i.e. the State of U. P.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that she owns a cinema house situate at Puranpur which was a town area governed by the provisions of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1940. On 22-4-1977 the Governor in exercise of powers under Section 36(1) of the said Act superseded the town area committee on grounds of persistent default and abuse of power and appointed the District Magistrate, Pilibhit as Administrator under Section 37 of the Act. Then on the 10th of July, 1978 the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 3(1)(a) of the U. P. Municipalities Act issued a notification declaring the area to be a fourth class municipality w.e.f. 16th of July, 1978. On 10-12-1978 an advertisement was issued in weekly news paper published from Pilibhit by the Officer Incharge, Municipal Board, Puranpur publishing proposal for imposing show tax within the limits of the Municipal Board, Puranpur. Subsequently by notification dated 12th of April, 1980 rules relating to the show tax were published in the official gazette. It is averred that prior to the said notification issued under Section 3(1) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, no show tax was imposed by the Town Area, Puranpur. It is claimed that the effect of the supersession of the Town Area, Puranpur and creation of Municipal Board in place of the Town Area is that the District Magistrate, Pilibhit who is the Administrator is alone competent to act as the Board and the action of the Officer Incharge in imposing the show tax is wholly illegal and not in conformity with the provisions of the U. P. Municipalities Act. It is also claimed that even on the creation of the municipality in place of the town area, the Municipal Board had no power to impose a new tax and the only power available to the new Board under Section 333-A is that it shall continue to impose and realise the taxes already imposed by the Town Area Committee and that no new taxes could be imposed. It is claimed that the impugned tax has been imposed by the Officer Incharge of the Board who is not the Administrator and who has not been appointed as Prescribed Authority by the State Government and as such the Officer Incharge of the Board cannot be deemed or treated as Board under the provisions of the Act. According to the petitioner there is no resolution of the Board nor any proposal was ever made by the Board for the imposition of show tax and the Board never authorised the Officer Incharge either to impose the tax or to take any steps for imposition of the tax.