Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 885 of 1981, decided on 24th February 1981.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑--

‑‑ Art. 199 read with Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑Levy of tax‑Grievance of petitioner that although tax imposed on Cinema described as a show tax yet levied at 10 rupees a day irrespective of whether on any particular day show held or not and that according to Cinematograph Rules, its incidence cannot he passed on to viewers in cinema house‑‑Held, although respondents described tax as a cinema show tax, yet in pith and substance same a tax on cinema covered by Entry No. 1 in Schedule Second to Ordinance and within competence of respondents to impose.

Muhammad Nur Ullah v. Municipal Corporation, Karachi P L D 1960 S C 24 ref.

Sh. Munir Ahmad for Petitioner.

Date of hearing ; 24th February 1981.

The petitioner has challenged the legality of the cinema show tax which has been levied by the Municipal Committee, Burewala, by its Notification dated 30‑9‑1980, A grievance of the petitioner is that even though the tax has been described as a show tax yet it is being levied at the rate of 10 Rupees per day irrespective of the fact weather on any particular day any show is held or not. Another grievance of the petitioner is that under the rules framed in pursuance of Cinematograph Act he cannot pass on this tax to the viewers in his cinema house.

The powers of taxation of a Union Council, which a Municipal Committee admittedly is have been' listed in para.1 of the Second Schedule to the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Entry No. 1 in this part reads as follows :‑‑ .

"Tax on Cinemas and Cinema‑tickets."

Even though the disputed tax has been described by the Municipal Committee as a Cinema show tax it is in pith and substance a tax on cinemas and is thus covered by the said entry. Consequently, it cannot be said that this tax is beyond the competence of the Municipal Committee. In the circumstances the fact that its incidence has not been made dependent upon the holding of show becomes irrelevant. I also do not think that the legality to the tax can be challenged on the ground that the cinema‑owners are not in a position to pass on its incidence to the persons who visit the cinema hall. Learned counsel referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Muhammad Nur Ullah v. Municipal Corporation, Karachi (PLD1960SC24) where it was held that a Cinema show tax was in substance a tax on entertainment or amusement. This decision of .the Supreme Court does not support the propositions canvassed by the learned counsel that the. tax imposed by Municipal Committee, Burewala was not a tax on Cinemas or that unless its incidence could be passed on to the visitors of the Cinema house the tax would be invalid. I find little merit in this Writ Petition which is Nearby dismissed in limine.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.