THE WESTERN INDIA THEATRES LTD. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF POONA

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 71 · Decided: 16-01-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
71 
may be that the appellant may in some future proce-
x959 
eding adduce evidence to establish that there are other Th w t 
1 a· 
cinema houses similarly situate and that the .imposi-
eThe;;,;;~t;, '" 
tion of a higher tax on the appellant is discriminatory 
v. 
as to which we say nothing; but all we need say is The Cantonment 
that in this suit the appellant bas not discharged the 
Board, Poona, 
onus that was on him and, on the material on record, 
Cantonment 
it is impossible for us to hold in this case that there 
1 
Das C .• 
has been any discrimination in fact. 
For reasons stated abve this appeal must be dismis-
sed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed 
THE WESTERN INDIA THEATRES LTD. 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF 
POONA 
{S. R. DAS, c. J., s. K. DAS, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR. 
K. N. WANCHOO and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Municipality, Power of-Imposition of tax on cinema show-
Constitutional validity of enactment-Enhancement of such tax-
Validity-Bombay District Municipal Act, I90I (Bom. III of 
IgoI), s. 59(I) (XI)-Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, I925 
(Bom. XVIII of Ig25), s. 60. 
The appellant, a public limited company, was a lessee of 
four cinema houses situated within the municipal limits of 
Poona City where it used to exhibit cinematograph films. 
The 
respondent, the Municipal Corporation of Poona, in exercise of 
its power under s. 59(1) (XI) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 
1901, levied with effect from October l, 1920, a tax of Rs. 2 per 
day as license fee on the-owners and lessees of cinema houses. 
That Act governed the Municipality till 1926 and thereafter it 
was governed bythe Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The 
tax was enhanced to Re. l per show on June 3, 1941, and to 
Rs. 5 per show on June 9, 1948. By the suit, out of which the 
present appeal arose, the appellant sought for a declaration that 
the levy of the said tax, the rules framed in connection there-
with and the enhancement of the tax as aforesaid were iIIegal 
and ultra vires. 
The trial court decreed the suit in part but the 
High Court in appeal reversed the decision of the trial court 
I959 
January z6. 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
I958 
and dismissed the suit. It was contended on behalf of the 
appellant that (r) the tax was not. one covered by Entry 50 
The Western India in List 11 of Seventh Schedule to the Government of India 
Theatres Ltd. 
Act, 1935, but was one on trade or calling covered by Entry 46 
v. 
thereof, and, was as such governed by s. l42A of the said Act and 
Municipal 
that (2) s. 59(1)(XI) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, 
Corporation of !he was unconstitutional in that the legislature had thereby delegat-
City of Poona 
ed essential legislative power to the Municipality to determine 
the nature of the tax to be imposed on the rate-payers and 
completely abdicated its function, leaving such power wholly 
unguided. 
Held, that both the contentions must fail. 
The first point was covered by the decision given in the 
appellant's other appeal, Civil Appeal No. 145 of 1955, which 
must also govern this case. 
It was not correct to contend that the power delegated to 
the Municipality under s. 59(1)(XI) of the Bombay District 
Municipal Act, 1901, was unguided. That section authorised 
the imposition of such taxes alone as were necessary for the pur-
poses of the Act. 
The obligations and functions cast upon the 
Municipalities by ch. VII of the Act showed that taxes could be 
levied only for implementing those purposes and none others. 
Nor could it be said that the provincial Legislature had 
abdicated its function in favour of the Municipality. The taxing 
power of the Municipality was made subject to the approval of 
the Governor-in-Council by the section itself. 
The marginal note to a section could not affect the construc-
tion of the section if its language was otherwise clear and un-
ambiguous and the word 'modify' connoted not merely reduc-
tion hut also other kinds of alteration including enlargement. 
The substitution of the word 'reduce' by the word 'modify' in 
the body of s. bo of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, 
notwithstanding the omission to do so in the marginal note, 
therefore, clearly indicated the intention of the Legislature to 
widen the scope of that section and, consequently, it could not 
be said that the enhancement of the tax was not sustainable 
thereunder. 
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Ahmedbhai 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.