9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de or shot projected on the screen but the tax has to be paid on the basis of focus area of the screen. It was further alleged in, the writ petition that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was not having any power to realise any arrears of advertisement tax under any provision of law and once the advance tax has been accepted finally for a particular year, there could be no question of the Municipal Corporation reopening the issue and calculating the advertisement tax on the basis of each slide and shot projected on the screen for the relevant year. It was also urged in the writ petition that the Municipal Corporation had no power to issue any notice under section 175 of the Act seeking any information from the petitioner regarding the various shots and slides displayed on the screen for the relevant years. It was also urged in the petition that by virtue of sections 143 to 146, the Municipal Corporation could only stop the display of advertisements on the screen if those advertisements were in violation of any provision of the Act and there is no provision in the Act enabling the Corporation to create a liability to advertisement tax retrospectively. It was further mentioned in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lculated at such rates not exceeding those specified in the Fifth Schedule as the Corporation may determine: Provided that no tax shall be levied under this section on any advertisement which (a) relates to a public meeting, or to an election to Parliament or the Corporation or to candidature in respect of such election ; or (b) is exhibited within the window of any building if the advertisement relates to the trade, profession or business carried on in that building; or (c) relates to the trade, profession or business carried on within the land or building upon or over which such advertisement is exhibited or to any sale or letting of such land or building or any effects therein or to any sale, entertainment or meeting to be held on or upon or in the same; or (d) relates to the name of the land or building upon or over which the advertisement is exhibited, or to the name of the owner or occupier of such land or building ; or (e) relates to the business of a railway administration and is exhibited within any railway station or upon any wall or other property of railway administration ; or (f) relates to any activity of the Central Government or the Corporation. (2) The tax o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isements or exhibiting them in any manner, a notice in duplicate in writing in such form as may be determined by the Commissioner with all the particulars required therein together with a copy of the matter to be advertised : Provided that the Commissioner may for reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the time limit in special cases. (2) The Commissioner shall, within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, intimate to the applicant the tax due on the intended advertisement provided the Commissioner approves of the advertisement. The Commissioner may disapprove of an advertisement, among others, on the ground that its contents or the manner of its display is indecent or otherwise offensive to good taste or public sentiment. 7. The tax on advertisements shall be payable in advance after the Commissioner has approved of the proposed advertisement. " It was held in this judgment that the liability to pay the advertisement tax is created by section 142 of the Act which also quantifies the liability by saving that the advertisement tax is to be calculated at such rates not exceeding those specified in the Fifth Schedule as the Corporation may determine. It was observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to CST v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh [1967] 19 STC 469 (SC), wherein it has been observed that while interpreting items in statutes like the Sales Tax Act, resort should be had not to the scientific or technical meaning of such terms but to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them, that is to say, to their commercial sense. I do not understand how this particular ratio is of any help in interpreting section 142 of the Act which in its plain meaning makes it clear as to what is liable to tax is every advertisement and nothing more and nothing less. He has also cited CIT v. National Taj Traders [1980] 121 ITR 535 (SC), in which it has been laid down that the principle that a fiscal statute should be construed strictly is applicable only to taxing provisions such as a charging provision or a provision imposing penalty and not to those Parts Of the statute which contain machinery provisions. There is no doubt about the legal principle that taxation laws have to be interpreted strictly and if two interpretations are possible in respect of particular tax provision imposing tax, then the interpretation which is more beneficial to the citizen has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch slide and shot projected on the screen, the advertisement tax has to be calculated and paid. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the principle of promissory estoppel applies to the facts of the present case and the Municipal Corporation is estopped from raising this demand retrospectively. He has cited Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. [1986] 158 ITR 574; 59 Comp Cas 526 (SC); [1985] 22 ELT 306; AIR 1986 SC 806. 1 reproduce the material law laid down by the Supreme Court on this doctrine of promissory estoppel (at p. 586 of 158 ITR): " The doctrine of promissory estoppel is well established in the administrative law of India. It represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. The basis of this doctrine is the interposition of equity which has always, true to its form, stepped in to mitigate the rigour of strict law. This doctrine, though of ancient vintage, was rescued from obscurity by the decision of Mr. justice Denning, as he then was, in his celebrated judgment in Central London Property Trust Ltd. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned. The Supreme Court's judgment in Jit Ram's case [1980] 3 SCR 689; AIR 1980 SC 1285, where it was held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not available against the exercise of executive functions of the State and the State cannot be prevented from exercising its functions under the law, is not a correct law to that extent. However, there can be no promissory estoppel against the Legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions nor can the Government or public authority be debarred by promissory estoppel from enforcing a statutory prohibition. It is equally true that promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make. The doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires, if it can be shown by the Government or public authority that having regard to the facts as they have transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government or public authority to the promise or representation made by it, the cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by the party concerned and it was held that in equity such obligations incurred by the officials can be enforced against the municipality concerned. Recently again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, [1987] 4 SC 35 ; AIR 1987 SC 2414, has reiterated the law in the following words (p. 2420 of AIR): " It is, however, quite fundamental that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the public bodies or the Government to carry out the representation or promise which is contrary to law or which is outside their authority or power." In the present case, the officials of the Municipal Corporation were not competent in law to give any interpretation to the provisions of the statute. If any such wrong interpretation has been given by such officials, that does not work as promissory estoppel against the right of the Municipal Corporation to recover the arrears of tax due from the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I conclude that there is no merit in this writ petition which I hereby dismiss and the stay already granted against recovery of tax is hereby vacated. In view of the legal question involved, I lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
