Back
1972 Supreme(Del) 160
High Court Of Delhi
AJAY ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Respondent
Civil 544 of 1971
Decided On : 05/17/1972
I.N.SHROFF, M.C.CHAGLA
The MCD is empowered to levy advertisement tax on each advertisement exhibited in a cinema house under Section 142 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
Headnote:
ADVERTISEMENT TAX - Levy of tax on each advertisement exhibited in cinema house - Validity - Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, Ss. 113(1)(d), 142, 148, 153(1), 154(1) - Delhi Municipal Corporation (Tax on Advertisements other than Advertisements Published in Newspapers) Bye-Laws, 1959, Bye-law 7 - Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19(1)(f), (g).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, owners of cinema houses, challenged the resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to levy advertisement tax on the basis of each advertisement (i.e., each short and slide) exhibited in each cinema. They contended that the MCD had no authority to impose such a tax, that the tax should be levied on the basis of maximum projection area on the screen used for exhibiting advertisements, and that the proposed levy violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
1. The MCD is empowered to levy a tax on advertisements other than those published in newspapers under Section 113(1)(d) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act). 2. Section 142 of the Act authorizes the MCD to levy a tax on every advertisement exhibited by means of a cinematograph. 3. The tax on each advertisement is to be calculated at rates not exceeding those specified in the Fifth Schedule to the Act. 4. The Fifth Schedule provides for the levy of tax on advertisements exhibited on screens in cinema houses and other public places by means of lantern slides or similar devices based on the space occupied by the advertisement. 5. The MCD's resolution to levy tax on each advertisement exhibited in a cinema house is within its competence and jurisdiction and is in conformity with Section 142 of the Act. 6. The advertisements displayed on the screen are to be treated in severality, and the tax is to be charged for every advertisement displayed. 7. The proposed levy does not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the MCD has the authority to levy advertisement tax on the basis of each advertisement exhibited in a cinema house? 2. Whether the tax should be levied on the basis of maximum projection area on the screen used for exhibiting advertisements? 3. Whether the proposed levy violates the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 142 of the Act empowers the MCD to levy a tax on every advertisement exhibited by means of a cinematograph. 2. The language of Section 142 is clear and admits of no doubt. Accordingly, every person who exhibits any advertisement by means of a cinematograph is required to pay such tax as the MCD may determine for every advertisement so exhibited. 3. The provisions contained in a schedule are to be construed in the light of what is enacted in the sections. If the words of a section are clear without admitting any ambiguity, one cannot refuse to give effect to the clear words of the statute. 4. The projection area mentioned in the Fifth Schedule has been given to facilitate the calculation of tax on shorts and slides in accordance with the rules approved by the MCD. 5. The proposed levy does not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The tax is not discriminatory as it is levied on every advertisement exhibited, and it does not amount to an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' right to carry on their trade or business.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the MCD's resolution to levy advertisement tax on the basis of each advertisement exhibited in a cinema house was dismissed.
( 1 ) SINCE common, question of law and fact is involved in these two writ petitions, the same shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.
( 2 ) THE petitioners in C. W. No. 543 of 1971 are the owners of the cinema house known as vishal situated opposite Rajouri Gardens, New Delhi. In Civil Writ No. 544 of 1971 the petitioners are the owners of the cinema house known as Imperial situated at Paharganj, Delhi. The petitioners in the two writ petitions carry on the trade or business as motion picture exhibitors and exhibitors of advertisements through slides and through shorts.
( 3 ) THE petitioners in the two writ petitions have challenged the resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter called as "the Corporation") in its meeting held on the 4th January, 1971, whereby the Corporation resolved that as recommended by the standing committee vide its resolution No. 1011, dated the 23rd October, 1970, advertisement tax be charged on the basis of each advertisement (i. e. , each short and slide) exhibited ineach cinema. It was further resolved that the commissioner, respondent No. 2, be asked to examine the feasibility of recovery of arrears of advertisement tax for the last three years on the basis of each advertisement exhibited in each cinema and submit his report as early as possible. The said resolution has been impugned by the petitioners on the ground that the respondents have no authority or law to impose, levy and collect advertisement tax on the basis proposed and threatened by them; that under section 142 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter to be called as "the Act") read with Fifth and Seventh Schedules thereto, the only basis on which the Corporation could or can impose, levy and collect advertisement tax is the maximum projection area on the screen used for purposes of exhibition of advertisement slides and advertisement shorts; that the Corpora- tion can only levy one single tax per annum on the basis of maximum projection area and that such would be the position not only for the year 1971-72, but also for the years preceding there to as also for the future years so long as the provisions of the Statute remain what they are to-day; that in the event of it being held that the Act and the Schedules permit levy of advertisement tax on the basis proposed and threatened by the Corporation, than by striking down the provisions of section 142 and/ or Fifth Schedule thereto as being violative of the Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and/or 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution and that the rates determined by the Corporation for the year 1971-72 in so far as they concern levy of advertisement tax on advertisements exhibited on screen in cinema houses as being violative of the fundamental rights under Article 14 and/or 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution.
( 4 ) THE allegation of the petitioners is that there is only one cinema screen in the cinema house and the same screen has to be used for the purpose of screening or exhibiting the main or feature film which alone the cinema-going public comes to see. In the circumstances the advertisement slide or advertisement short can only be shown on the screen for a very short duration; that the time for an advertisement slide does not usually exceed 68 seconds and time for advertisement short does not exceed usually 70 seconds; that section 142 (2) lays down that tax on advertisements shall be payable in advance; that item 7 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act provides that for advertisements exhibited on screen in cinema houses for a space upto 5 sq. ft. the maximum amount of tax per annum (payable in advance) shall be Rs. 96. 00 and for a space of over 5 sq. ft. and upto 25 sq. ft. the maximum amount of tax per annum shall be Rs. 120. 00 and that for every additional 25 sq. ft. or less, the maximum amount of tax per annum shall be Rs. 120. 00; that from the aforesaid provisions it is clear that the tax per annum (pay
