TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (8) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Writ Petition No. 2447, Writ Petition No. 2448, Writ Petition No. 2429 decided on August 04, 1992 Darshan Lal Misra, Senior Advocate (Ms. A. Subhashini, Ms. Shobha Dikshit and P.K. Pillai, Advocates, with him), for the respondents. M.S. Ganesh, for the petitioners. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J.-The imposition of "theatre tax" by the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, has been challenged by the cinema owners/lessees in these petitions under article 32 of the Constitution of India. Sections 172 and 2(77) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 ("the Act"), are reproduced hereunder: "172. Taxes to be imposed under this Act.-(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the executive committee of the Nagar Mahapalika to draft the rules in that respect which are finally to be framed by the State Government. The draft rules are published in the prescribed manner to enable the affected public to file objections. Section 200 of the Act makes it obligatory for the Nagar Mahapalika to consider the objections so received and to re-publish the draft rules in case any change is made therein as a result of such consideration. After considering all the objections the draft rules are finalised by the Nagar Mahapalika and are forwarded to the State Government along with the objections. Section 201 of the Act empowers the State Government to reject, modify or to accept the proposed rules. Under section 202 of the Act i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ental value of Rs. 10,000 or less. At this stage we may notice the fact that the theatre tax imposed by Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, was challenged by the cinema exhibitors before the Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grounds of attack were substantially the same as before us in these petitions. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge was dismissed by a Division Bench consisting of R.S. Pathak and H. Swarup, JJ. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court is reported as Niranjan Lal Bhargava Trust v. State of U.P. [1972] All LJ 279. Gulu Thadani, petitioner No. 6 before us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e special civic amenities at the places where cinemas/theatres are situated. So long as the tax has a reasonable relation to the purposes of the Act the same cannot be held to be arbitrary. The rate of tax to be levied and the persons or the class of persons liable to pay the same is determined by inviting objections which are finally considered and decided by the State Government. There is no force in the argument that the Legislature has abdicated its function to the Mahapalikas. The tax is levied in accordance with the statutory rules framed by the State Government and the said rules are laid before each House of the State Legislature for not less than 14 days and are subject to such modifications as the Legislature may make during the ....