LexTHE WESTERN INDIA THEATRES LTD. versus THE CANTONMENT BOARD, POONA, CANTONMENT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 63 on it. The effect of this order will be that the appel- z959 lant shall be deemed to be in possession of a valid per- d f r ll Deep Chand mit and he shall have to be displace a ter 10 owing v. the usual procedure prescribed by the U. P. Road The State of uttar Transport Services (Development) Act." Pradesh & Others Pursuant to their order, it appears that the Regional Transport Authority renewed his permit on October 11, Subba Rao J. 1956 with effect from November 1, 1953 to October 31, 1956. In the circumstances, as the petitioner was not a permit-holder when the Government made the order, no relief can be given to him in this appeal. This order will not preclude the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 429 of 1958, if he has any righl, to take appro- priate proceedings against the State Government. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed with one set of costs to the State ofUttar Pradesh. Appeals dism:~ssed. THE WESTERN INDIA THEATRES LTD. v. THE CANTONMENT BOARD, POON A, CANTONMENT (S. R. DAS, c. J., s. K. DAS, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. 'vVANCHOO and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) Entertainment Tax-Imposition on cinema show--Validity- Cantonments Act, I924 (Act II of I924), s. 60-Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, I925 (Bom. XV III of I925), s. 73-Go·vernment of India Act, I9J5, s. IOO, Sch. VII, Entry 50. The appellant, a public limited company, was the lessee of wo cinema houses, " West End" and" Capitol" situated with- in the Poona cantonment area. By a notification dated June 17, 1948, the Bombay Government with the sanction of the Gover- nor-General-in-Council imposed certain taxes in the cantonment of Poona including an entertainment tax of Rs. IO per show on the appellant's cinema houses and Rs. 5 per show on others. The appellant, who paid the tax under protest, brought the suit, out of which the present appeal arose, for a declaration that the I959 January r6. 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. imposition of the said tax by the respondent was illegal, for a . permanent injunction restraining it from levying the tax and for The W.stem lndrn the refund of Rs. 45,802, paid as tax by the appellant. The Theafru Ltd. trial Court decreed the snit but the High Court, on appeal by v. the respondent, reversed the decision of the trial Court and The Cantonment dismissed the snit. Under s. 60(1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 Boa,d, Poona, (II of 1924), read with s. 73 (xiv) of the Bombay Municipal Cantonment Boroughs Act, 1925 (Born. XVIII of 1925), the res]'Ondent had the power to impose any other tax which the Bombay Provincial Legislature could impose on the province. The question, there- fore, was whether the Bombay Legislature had the power to _ impose the tax in question. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that although the Provincial Legislature had undou- btedly.the power under s. 100 of the Government of India Act, 1935, read with Entry 50 in Sch. VII thereto, to make law with respect to "taxes dn luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling", the said entry contemplat- ed a law imposing taxes on persons who enjoyed the lnxnries, entertainments or amusements and not on persons who provided them. Such a tax, if levied on the la tier would be one on pro- fession, trade or calling as contemplated by Entry 46 of the said Schedule and could not exceed Rs. roo per annum under s. 142A of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Rs. 250 per annum under Art. 276(2) of the Constitution. Held, that the contention must be negatived. It is well-settled that in construing an entry conferring legislative powers, the widest pos~ible construction according to their ordinary meaning must be given to the words used. There could be no reason, therefore, in construing Entry 50, to differentiate between the giver and the receiver of the luxuries, entertainments or amusements and both must be held to be amenable to the tax. Navinchandra Mafatlal v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 829, referred to. Although an entertainment tax was regarded as a tax on expenditure, there was no warrant for holding that Entry 50 contemplated only a tax on moneys spent on luxuries, entertain- ments or amusements. VVhat it had in view were these matters, and not either the giver or the receiver of them, as the real objects of legislation. The impugned tax was distinguishabl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.