(1.) The Municipal Committee, Urmar Tanda filed this writ petition challenging the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dasuya, reducing the house tax by his order dated 27.4.1981 (Annexure P-7).
(2.) The 3rd respondent is a partnership firm owning a cinema hall known as Nanak Palace situated on Hargobind Pur Road, Urmar Tanda. In the year 1976, the Municipal Committee, Urmar Tanda assessed the cinema hall to yearly house tax of Rs. 9,909.20. The Municipal Committee issued a notice to the owners of the cinema hall, Nanak Palace, intimating that the committee has prepared the list regarding house tax for the year 1976-77 and that the house tax in respect of the cinema hall has been assessed at Rs. 9909.30 per annum. The said notice also called upon the cinema hall owners to file any objections if any to the said assessment within thirty days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice is attached as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. The 3rd respondent Nanak Palace filed a reply to the said notice on 6.8.1976. In the said reply, they stated that they were running three shows daily and working on full house capacity average income comes to Rs. 3,13,550/- and 20% of the said average income comes to Rs. 63,510/- and 15% of this figure will be Rs. 9526.50 and not Rs. 9909.30 and according to them since they have 3 daily shows, approximately Rs. 2,000/- as yearly house tax and the same should not be 4/5 folds. At the time of hearing the objections under Annexure P-2 dated 6.8.1976, the owner of the cinema hall gave a statement before the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Urmar Tanda on 16.8.1976 under Annexure P-3. In the said statement he requested the Committee to impose tax upon them on the basis of the shows exhibited. He further stated that they are ready to pay the tax @ Rs. 7461.98 per annum against the tax proposed to be imposed, on the cinema hall. On the same day, the Municipal Committee acceded to the request of the proprietor of the cinema hall and reduced the tax from Rs. 9909.30 to Rs. 7468.65. The 3rd respondent continued to pay the said tax till 1980. On 28.3.1980, a partner of the cinema hall filed an application before the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, Urmar Tanda stating that the house tax imposed on the cinema halls situated at Dasuya and Pathankot was far less. The cinema owners at Dasuya were paying Rs. 1200/- per annum whereas at Pathankot the cinema owners were paying only 2016/- per annum as house tax, and therefore, prayed for reduction of the house tax keeping in view the status of the city. Thereafter, the representative of the cinema hall was asked to appear before the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee. In spite of the notice issued, the partner of the cinema hall did not appear before the Executive Officer. Thereafter, the representation of the partner of the cinema hall was rejected by the sub committee. Aggrieved by the same, partners of the cinema hall 3rd respondent went in appeal before Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Dasuya who by the impugned order reduced the house tax of Rs. 2,000/- per annum for the year 1980-81 and the Municipal Committee was further advised to assess the tax for the next year keeping in view the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Committee Act referred to in his order. Aggrieved by the same, the Municipal Committee, Urmar Tanda filed this writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the writ-petitioner argued that the assessment was made for the year 1976 and the amount of tax was imposed on the plea and admission of the proprietor of the cinema hall and thereafter there was no revision or new assessment of tax and therefore, there was no occasion for the 3rd respondent to file an appeal. Simply because the representation of the 3rd respondent was rejected it does not give him a cause of action for filing an appeal. The appeal can be made only against an order of assessment or levy of tax under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 . He further contended that the tax collected by the Municipal Committee, Pathankot and Dasuya cannot be taken into consideration while determining the tax payable by the owners of the buildings in Municipal Committee, Urmar Tanda.