Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Indian Case Summary

Corporation Of Calcutta And … vs Liberty Cinema on 14 December, 1964 – Case Summary

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In the case of the Corporation of Calcutta and Another vs. Liberty Cinema, a landmark judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of India on 14th December 1964. The case revolved around the interpretation of the Calcutta Municipal Act (33 of 1951), specifically sections 413 and 548, and the validity of a license fee levied on cinema houses.

Facts of the Case

The appellant in the case was the Corporation of Calcutta, and the respondent was Liberty Cinema, a firm owning a cinema house and conducting public cinema shows. According to section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, no person could keep open any cinema house for public amusement without a license granted by the Corporation of Calcutta. Section 548(2) of the Act stated that for every license under the Act, a fee could be charged at a rate fixed by the Corporation.

In 1948, the Corporation fixed the license fees based on the annual valuation of the cinema house. The respondent, Liberty Cinema, had been paying a license fee of Rs. 400 per year on that basis. However, in 1958, the Corporation changed the basis of assessment of the fee. Under the new method, the fee was assessed per show according to the sanctioned seating capacity of the cinema house. As a result, the respondent had to pay a fee of Rs. 6,000 per year.

Issues Raised

The respondent moved the High Court for the issue of a writ quashing the resolution. The respondent contended that the levy was a fee in return for services to be rendered and not a tax. As it was not commensurate with the costs incurred by the Corporation in providing the services, the levy was invalid. The respondent also argued that if section 548 authorized the levy of a tax, as distinct from a fee in return for service rendered, it was invalid, as it amounted to an illegal delegation of legislative functions to the appellant to fix the amount of a tax without any guidance for the purpose. Lastly, the respondent claimed that the levy was invalid as it violated Article 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution.

On the other hand, the Corporation contended that the levy was a tax and not a fee in return for services. They also argued that section 548(2) did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the levy was not a fee but a tax. The court observed that the Act did not intend to use the word “fee” as referring only to a levy in return for services. The court also noted that the word “fee” in section 548 must be read as referring to a tax as any other reading would make the section invalid.

The court further held that the fixing of the rate of a tax is not of the essence of legislative power and the fixing of rates may be left to a non-legislative body. The court found that there was sufficient guidance in the Act as to how the rate of the levy under section 548 was to be fixed, and hence, the section was valid.

The court also dismissed the respondent’s claim that the levy amounted to expropriation and was, therefore, invalid as violating clauses (f) and (g) of sub-Article (1) of Article 19. The court observed that a fee at the rate of Rs. 5 per show in a house with a seating capacity of 551 could not be said to be unreasonably high.

Dissenting Opinion

However, there was a dissenting opinion by Justices Subba Rao and Ayyangar. They held that the levy was a fee

and not a tax. They argued that the Act draws a clear distinction between taxes and fees, and what is permitted to be imposed by section 548(2) is only a fee as distinguished from a tax. They also contended that there was no correlation between the fee charged and the service rendered, making the levy unauthorized and invalid.

They further argued that the word “services” in the context has to be understood in a wide sense, including supervision and control over the activities for the excess of which the fee is charged. They disagreed with the majority view that the levy was a tax and not a fee, stating that the levy of such license fees on various activities which form the subject of legislative control or regulation under the various non-taxation entries in the Lists were treated as tax.

In their view, if viewed as a tax, the delegation in section 548(2) is unconstitutional, as essential legislative functions are parted with to the municipality, a subordinate law-making body, and therefore the provision is unconstitutional. They argued that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated but where the law lays down the principles and affords guidance to the subordinate law-making authority, details may be left for being filled up by the executive or by other authorities vested with quasi-legislative power.


The case of Corporation of Calcutta and Another vs. Liberty Cinema is significant as it delves into the distinction between a tax and a fee, the concept of excessive delegation, and the interpretation of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The case also highlights the importance of the correlation between the fee charged and the service rendered, and the need for legislative guidance in the fixation of a tax or fee. The dissenting opinion further enriches the discourse on these issues. The judgment has had a profound impact on the interpretation and understanding of municipal laws and the powers of municipal corporations in India.