Clear statutory authority for taxation requires identified liable persons and subject matter; implied liability and estoppel cannot save the levy.

Taxing power must be exercised by clear statutory authority identifying both the person liable and the subject of taxation; liability cannot be inferred by implication. In taxation matters, estoppel does not prevent the State or a municipal body from enforcing delegated legislative power, so an alleged assurance could not defeat the levy. The notification was nevertheless unsustainable because it did not clearly specify the establishments or persons liable to pay show tax, even though the Municipal Account Code provided collection and assessment machinery. The levy was not saved by the enabling municipal provision, and the show-tax notification was quashed, with no refund of tax already recovered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State or the Municipal Committee was estopped from levying show tax on video parlours on the basis of an alleged assurance. (ii) Whether the impugned show-tax notification was invalid for want of clear identification of the persons liable to pay tax and for absence of a workable assessment machinery. (iii) Whether the levy could be sustained under section 242 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.

Issue (i): Whether the State or the Municipal Committee was estopped from levying show tax on video parlours on the basis of an alleged assurance.

Analysis: No material established any undertaking or implied assurance by the State or the Municipal Committee not to impose further tax. In matters of taxation, estoppel cannot be invoked to prevent the exercise of delegated legislative power.

Conclusion: The plea of estoppel failed and the levy was not invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned show-tax notification was invalid for want of clear identification of the persons liable to pay tax and for absence of a workable assessment machinery.

Analysis: The notification fixed only the rates of tax and the property to be taxed, but did not clearly specify which establishments or persons were liable. However, the absence of machinery was not accepted because the Municipal Account Code, 1930 provided for appointment of tax superintendents and collection and assessment of such taxes. The taxing power must be exercised on the basis of clear words, and liability cannot be inferred by intendment.

Conclusion: The notification was unsustainable to the extent it failed to clearly determine the persons liable to pay the tax.

Issue (iii): Whether the levy could be sustained under section 242 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.

Analysis: Section 242 empowered the State Government to impose a tax which could be levied by the committee, but the levy still had to satisfy the basic requirements of a valid taxing measure. On the facts, the impugned notification did not validly establish liability in the manner required.

Conclusion: The levy was not sustained under section 242.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded and the impugned show-tax notification was quashed, with no order as to costs and with no refund of tax already recovered.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax can be imposed only by clear statutory authority identifying the person liable and the subject of taxation; liability cannot be inferred by implication, and estoppel does not bar the exercise of taxing power.

---