DINESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Order shall also govern the disposal of M.P. No. 2583/87.

(2.) The petitioner in each of these two cases is the same person and runs a cinema house at Gwalior in the name of Kailash Talikes. Two orders have been passed against the petitioner u/s 4-C of the M.P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Against these orders, an appeal is preferable u/s 4-D of the Act. In place of preferring an appeal, however, the petitioner has filed these two writ petitions asserting that the provision of S.4-D of the Act was ultra vires inasmuch as it requires deposit of certain amount of tax and penalty as a condition precedent for the maintainability of the appeal.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we find it difficult to take the view that S.4-D can be held to be ultra vires on that ground. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 1234 in this connection with S.406(2)(e) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act. Its requirement was summarised as hereunder :