https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200766 A tax imposed on a cinema or theatre show was treated as a tax on entertainments, not merely on the audience, so the legal incidence could be placed on the exhibitor if the statute so permitted. Double taxation was not constitutionally barred on the same subject matter, and the higher rate for particular cinemas did not violate Article 14 because taxation classification was permissible. Section 59(1)(xi) was upheld as valid conditional or subordinate legislation, since the Act laid down the policy and field of municipal taxation. The word "modify" in the 1925 Act was construed broadly enough to include enhancement of an existing levy, so the municipal increase was lawful. en-us Tue, 10 Feb 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Apr 2018 16:35:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200766 A tax imposed on a cinema or theatre show was treated as a tax on entertainments, not merely on the audience, so the legal incidence could be placed on the exhibitor if the statute so permitted. Double taxation was not constitutionally barred on the same subject matter, and the higher rate for particular cinemas did not violate Article 14 because taxation classification was permissible. Section 59(1)(xi) was upheld as valid conditional or subordinate legislation, since the Act laid down the policy and field of municipal taxation. The word "modify" in the 1925 Act was construed broadly enough to include enhancement of an existing levy, so the municipal increase was lawful. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Feb 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200766