Notifications imposing show tax must comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 62(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, which require the definition of the class of persons or description of property liable to the payment of tax, and the mention of the system of assessment of tax to be adopted.

D.V.Sehgal, J.

1. The petitioner, a firm operating a cinema by the name of Jaswant Theatre, Sunam, has through the present writ petition sought issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing notifications, annexures P-1 to P-5, and for grant of appropriate relief as the circumstances of the case may warrant.

2. The town of Sunam where the cinema of the petitioner is situated has its Municipal Committee, respondent No. 2. On the proposal of respondent No. 2, the State of Punjab, respondent No. 1, issued a notification dated June 8, 1966, annexure P-1, which is to the following effect :

" In pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (10) of Section 62 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 , it is hereby notified that with the previous sanction of the Governor of Punjab, the Municipal Committee, Sunam, in the Sangrur District, has made the following amendment in the Punjab Government Notification No. 12614-CI(6CI)-62472, dated November 18, 1960, as subsequently amended, imposing show tax within the limits of Sunam Municipality.

AMENDMENT

Item No. 1 of the existing schedule shall be substituted as under :

Serial No. Description Rate of tax per show

1. Cinema Show Four rupees.

The amendment shall come into force with effect from August 1, 1966."

Through a subsequent notification dated June 27, 1973, annexure P-2, the following amendment was made in the notification, annexure P-1 : "Item No....of the existing schedule shall be substituted as under :

Serial No. Description Rate of tax per show

1. Cinema show Five rupees

The amendment shall come into force with effect from October 1, 1973."

The notification was further amended by yet another notification issued by respondent No. 1 on March 7, 1977, annexue P-3, which is to the following effect : "Item No. 2 of the existing schedule shall be substituted as under :

Serial No. Description of cinema halls Rate of show tax per show.

1. Air-conditioned cinema halls or cinema halls where this facility is available Rs.15

2. Cinema halls where facility of air cooling is available Rs.10

3. Cinema halls where neither of the above facilities is available Rs.5

The executive officer of respondent No. 2 later informed the petitioner, vide letter dated April 1, 1977, annexure P-4, that in view of the amendment brought into force, vide notification annexure P-3, the payment of show tax by the petitioner has been increased from Rs. 5 to Rs. 10 with effect from April 16, 1977, and directed it to deposit the same. These notifications have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the class of persons or description of the property liable to the payment of tax is not defined therein. The system of assessment of tax to be adopted is also not mentioned. As such, these notifications do not comply with the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short " the Act ").

The above challenge to annexures P-1 to P-4 is sought to be met by the respondents by filing their respective written statements. It has been contended before me on their behalf that it is understood that the person who is operating the cinema is liable to make payment of the show tax levied thereby and the mode of assessment is also clear as the show tax is payable per cinema show.

3. It is not necessary for me to dilate on the rival contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties as the matter is fully covered by a judgment of I.S. Tiwana J. in Bhagwan Dass Bir Chand, Sangrur v. State Government of Punjab (Civil Writ Petition No. 3495 of 1978, decided on November 17, 1983) wherein, inter alia, the learned judge held as under:

" This submission is obviously devoid of any merit for the short reason that the respondent-municipal committee cannot plausibly and justifiably plead not to carry out the mandate of law as specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 62. Counsel cannot explain as to why the person either owning the cinema hall wherein the show is being