9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case shows that the respondent-assessee has already been embroiled in a lot of litigation on this account when one shrewd CTO in 1981-82 suddenly embarked upon the enquiry against the respondent-assessee and diving deep in the offices of municipal corporation, he came out with his find that the respondent-assessee's cinema house located on plot No. 1 in Suratgarh, which was allotted to him under a lease-deed by the Additional Collector-cum-Secretary, Mandi Vikas Samiti, Hanumangarh in January, 1979 and the cinema house thereon was constructed and started in the first week of October, 1981, was in fact situated in the municipal area and therefore, Panchayat Samiti had no jurisdiction to collect the entertainment tax from the said cinema house. The Vikas Adhikari of Panchayat Samiti, Suratgarh had by a letter dated September 16, 1981 informed the assessee-cinema house that its cinema house was located at outside the municipal area and therefore, the tax payable under the Act on commencement of exhibition of films would be payable to the Panchayat Samiti, Suratgarh and the petitioner was required to make a security deposit of Rs. 2,000 and to execute an agreement under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rh municipality on December 2, 1981 in pursuance of the correspondence of CTO that the cinema house of the assessee was located within the municipal limits but, the plot in question was sold by the Additional Collector-cum-Secretary, Mandi Vikas Samiti, Hanumangarh as the municipality did not have the powers to sell the land in the mandi area. It is only on December 2, 1981 that the CTO was informed by the Additional Collector-cum-Secretary, Mandi Vikas Samiti, Hanumangarh certifying that the cinema house in question was located in the municipal limits of Suratgarh and the tax under the Act was payable to the State Government instead of to the Panchayat Samiti and cancelling the certificate which was issued to the contrary earlier. Learned counsel therefore, submits that for the period after January 6, 1982, the assessee was not justified in continuing to deposit the entertainment tax with the Panchayat Samiti, Suratgarh up to October, 1986 and therefore, the learned assessing authority was right in raising the demand of tax against the assessee for the said period after January 6, 1982 and the Tax Board therefore has committed an error in striking down the said demand and thus the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submits that the liability to pay entertainment tax for the said period even after January 6, 1982 up to October, 1986 stood discharged by him by payment of said tax to the Panchayat Samiti, Suratgarh and no such repetitive tax could be demanded by the CTO as it would amount to double taxation and the same is not permissible in law. He further submits that judgment of R.T.T. became final with the rejection of writ petition filed by Revenue by the Division Bench of this court on September 24, 1999 and therefore, it is not open for Revenue to re-agitate the said issue. Therefore, the tax board was justified in holding in its favour that such demand could not be made by the CTO. Therefore, he submits, the revision petitions filed by the Revenue deserve to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel at length and after giving my careful consideration to the rival submissions, the provisions of law and various judgments cited at bar, this court is of the considered view that the revision petitions filed by the Revenue deserve to fail. The reasons are as follows. The scheme of the Rajasthan Entertainments and Advertisements Tax Act, 1957 is like this. The said Act was enacted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovides for payment of subsidies to local authorities by way of compensation. It provides that from the proceeds of the tax collected under this Act every year, there shall be paid to each local authority which was in receipt of an income from a tax levied by it in respect of admission to entertainment under any enactment prior to coming into force of this Act, such sum as may be determined by the State Government, which shall not be less than a sum equivalent to the average net annual income derived by such local authority during past three years from the tax so levied. By a notification under this section 14, such sum was determined to be double of the average net annual income derived by such local authorities during these three years. Section 15 deals with bar of certain proceedings against officers or servants of the State Government for the acts done in good faith. Section 16 deals with limitation for certain suits and prosecutions. Similarly, section 17 deals with proceedings against officers and servants of local authorities and section 18 deals with powers to make Rules conferred on the State Government. Section 19 deals with delegation of certain powers of the State Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the powers conferred by section 19A of the Rajasthan Entertainments Tax Act, 1957 (Raj. Act No. 24 of 1957), the State Government hereby appoints the first December, 1959 as the date from which the Panchayat Samitis shall collect entertainment tax within their respective jurisdiction. [Notification No. F. 9/(10) E T 59 dated November 3, 1959, Pub. in Raj. Gaz. Pt. IV-C, dated November 31, 1959] Now, the most important and crucial question which arises for consideration is as to whether if in the same enactment, two collecting agencies have been empowered by the State Government to collect the same tax levied under the same Act, though, for different areas, the Panchayat Samitis for block areas and the State Government through its Commercial Taxes Department for the other areas, how the liability of the assessee is discharged and what is the effect if a collection of tax under the Act is made by one of the gencies, which is not really authorised as per the area defining its jurisdiction. In other words, will it be or will it not be double taxation if the tax levied under the same enactment is paid to one collecting agency is again demanded by the second collecting age ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of no moment that some other body, including the State Legislature, has already entered the filed. The question is: has the municipal committee or corporation, under this Act, already exacted a similar tax? If it has, the second exercise is anathema. Nobody has a case that the Corporation has earlier taxed foreign liquor under this Act. Therefore, the submission has no substance and we reject it. From the perusal of the said law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court, the ratio for deciding the applicability of prohibition of double taxation is as to whether the authorised agency has already exacted a similar tax under the Act already and if so, the second exercise is prohibited and it would so amount to forbidden double taxation. In Radhakisan Rathi v. Additional Collector, Durg AIR 1995 SC 1540, the honourable Supreme Court seized with a controversy as to whether the Janpada Panchayat can impose theatre tax on cinema theatre situated within the territorial limits of local municipality in which municipality also imposed cinema tax, the court held that the same subject-matter can be covered by the tax nets imposed by different competent taxing authorities and there wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... municipal area during the disputed period in question, the question which still looms large is that if tax under the same enactment has been paid by the assessee to the Panchayat Samiti, is the obligation of the assessee under the Act not discharged? The answer in the considered opinion of this court has to be in affirmative and it has to be held that as far as obligation of assessee for payment of tax under the Act is concerned that stood completely discharged with the payment of tax to the Panchayat Samiti. Article 265 of the Constitution of India not only prohibits levy but, collection of tax also except, by authority of law. But, in the present case, the collection of tax by the Panchayat Samiti from the respondent-assessee is not without authority of law as such. Section 19A of the Act authorises Panchayat Samitis to do so. Merely because, there was dispute as to whether the cinema house of the respondent-assessee fell within the municipal limits or panchayat block area, it cannot be said that collection of tax by Panchayat Samiti was without authority of law. Even, if the assessee can be said to be at some mistake in paying the tax to the Panchayat Samiti even after the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
