AMBER THEATRE MODINAGAR Vs. COMMISSIONER MEERUT DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -By means of this petition, the petitioner which is running a theatre for exhibiting cinema shows is challenging the imposition of what has been described as 'show Tax.' The main ground of challenge is that the tax has been imposed by the Commissioner who did not have the 37-Rep.-1991 power to do the same. It is contended that the power to impose a tax vests only in the State Government. This contention has been denied in the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit, it has been asserted that the State Government had vide a G. O. dated 9-8-1974 directed all the Municipal Boards of U. P. to impose show tax at the rate of Rs. 5/- per show on the theatre of which the annual rental value was less than Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 10/- per show in the case of theatre the rental value whereof was more than Rs. 10,000/-. In supersession of this G. O., another G. O. was issued on 19-9-1978 directing the Municipalities to impose the tax at enhanced rate at Rs. 10/- and Rs. 20/- per show for the two classes of theatres mentioned above. In compliance of the said G. O., the respondent Municipal Board framed proposals for the increase of the rate of show tax and published the same in the newspaper called 'Shram Bhagwan' on 21-1-1979 and again on 28-1-1979 inviting objections in accordance with the procedure prescribed under sections 131 and 132 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The extracts of the news paper were also annexed to the counter affidavit. The further contention that the Commissioner had no power to impose a tax has been repudiated in the counter-affidavit. It has been said that the Commissioner was fully authorised under section 133 of U. P Municipalities Act to impose a tax.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and are clearly of the view that section 133 of the U. P. Municipalities Act fully authorises the Prescribed Authority, who is designated to be the Commissioner of the Division, to impose the tax falling under clauses (i) to (xii) of sub-section (1) of section 128. It is only in the case of a Municipality other than a city that the ultimate authority to approve the proposals to impose a tax vests in the State Government. The premise on which the petition has been filed, namely, that the Commissioner had no power to impose a tax has thus no basis. Section 133 of the aforesaid Act furnishes a complete answer to the petitioner's contention,