ALPANA THEATRE Vs. NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the imposition of the show tax at the rate of Rs. 10/- per show. According to the petitioner, Municipality Gobara Nawapara is a class-Ill Municipality and is governed by the Provisions of M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Municipality Act ). According to the petitioner, the rate of show tax was Rs. 3/- per show for the matinee (12. 00 noon and 3. 00 p. m. show) and Rs. 4/- for the night show i. e. 6. 00 and 9. 00 p. m. show. This tax was in vogue from 3-1-1976 upto 30-6-1986. According to the petitioner, the Municipality increased or enhanced the show tax without following the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. He submits that he could learn about the enhancement when demand dated 24-4-1987 for a sum of Rs. 7,160/- for the period between 3-1-1986 to 30-6-1986 was made against him. According to him, he objected to the said demand. He however deposited the said show tax but took up the matter in an appeal under Section 172 of the Municipality Act. The Appellate Forum rejected the appeal and a Revision submitted before the respondent No. 4 was also dismissed holding that the Appellate Forum could only see the correctness of the demand of the amount claimed under the demand but would not be entitled to see the legality of the demand nor could be able to consider whether the tax was rightly imposed or not. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought to challenge the enhancement/imposition of the tax at the rate of Rs. 10 per show and has also submitted that the demand made by the respondent Municipality be quashed.

(2.) SHRI Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government has powers under Section 127 of the Municipality Act to issue general or special order relating to the imposition of the tax, therefore, and as the State has already issued a notification providing the minimum and maximum limit of the show tax, the respondent-Municipality had no authority to impose the tax beyond what is fixed by the State Government in its earlier notifications. Learned counsel for the respondent-Municipality contends that according to Section 130 of the Municipalities Act in case of Municipality other than Class-I Municipal Council with the previous sanction of the prescribed authority a council may vary the amount or rate of any tax which has already been imposed. Learned counsel submits that as the respondent- Municipality had obtained the previous sanction of the prescribed authority who is the director the imposition of the show tax or its enhancement cannot be challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) SHRI J. P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that mainly the dispute is between the petitioner and the Municipality and the State has nothing to do with the present dispute but the State would have powers to issue special or general directions regarding imposition or fixation of the limits of the tax under Section 127 of the Municipalities Act.