1987 (2) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The same were, however, rejected and the executive officer of respondent No. 1, vide order dated March 30, 1978, annexure P- 1, approved the proposal of enhancement of the annual rental value of the theatre building for the purpose of house tax for the year 1977-78 at Rs. 88,178. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order and filed an appeal, annexure P-2, with the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, respondent No. 3, which, however, failed and was dismissed, vide order dated October 23, 1978, annexure P-3. The contention of the petitioner that the fair rent of the property should be considered a,, the reasonable letting value thereof and the assessment made on its basis was rejected by respondent No. 3. The orders, ann....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....agreed formula was adopted to work out the rateable value for the purpose of assessment of house tax for the year 1977-78 also. The petitioners, therefore, were estopped from challenging the same. It was thus urged that the orders, annexures P-1 and P-3, should be held to be valid and in accordance with law. I have heard learned counsel. The contention of the petitioners is that respondents Nos. I and 2 assessed the rateable value on the basis of the number of occupied seats in the cinema hall, net collection on the tickets sold and by giving deduction of expenses of air-cooling and other overhead expenses. Thus, the assessment has been made on the basis of daily income from the cinema of different shows, the number of seats in different....