Short Note : 1. The Janpada Panchayat, Rehli passed a resolution to impose a tax called 'show tax' as permitted by section 157 (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 with effect from 1-4-1973. The respondent No.2 was the owner of Kalpna Talkies at Rehli The respondent No 2 filed an appeal under section 159 of the Act. Before the Collector, the Janpada Panchayat agreed to give a hearing to respondent No.2 and not to recover any tax till then. Consequently, such a consent order (Annexure J) dated 23-7-1973 was passed by the Collector. The Janpad Panchayat filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Collector's order (Annexure J) dated 23-7-1973. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that such an appeal was incompetent under section 159 of the Act since the provision of appeal did not permit any challenge to the authority to levy the tax but only to an assessment or demand of tax from any particular person after the same had become payable. Held : Section 157 enables the Janpada Panchayat to impose the taxes known as 'toll tax' and 'show-tax'. Sub-section (1) of section 158 enables the State Government to frame rules to regulate the imposition, assessment and collection of these taxes and to provide for ancillary matters. Sub-section (2) then lays down that no objection to any assessment or to the liability of any person to be assessed or taxed can be taken except in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Obviously, section 159 provides the manner of taking such an objection spoken of in sub-section (2) of section 158. It may be mentioned that while sub-section (1) of section 158 speaks of imposition, assessment and collection as three distinct stages in the process of taxation, sub-section (2) does not speak of any objection being permitted against imposition i.e. the initial stage of acquiring authority to levy the tax but contemplates an objection only from the subsequent stage of assessment of the tax. Section 159 provides an appeal against taxation and says that the appeal lies against 'imposition' of the tax in the manner prescribed. The expression used in section 159 is 'imposition' alone and that is how the difficulty arises. Section 159 provides an appeal against taxation and says that the appeal lies against 'imposition' of the tax in the manner prescribed. The expression used in section 159 is 'imposition' alone and that is how the difficulty arises. However for a harmonious construction, the appeal provided in section 159 should be confined only to the extent permitted under section 158 (2). Section 165 also throws light on this problem. It reserves to the State Government the right, inter alia, to reduce, suspend, abolish or re-impose the tax. Section 165, therefore, is an express provision enabling the State Government after the tax has been imposed to exercise any of these powers which permit a reduction in the rate of tax, its suspension for any period of time, its total abolition and subsequently its re-imposition. It is therefore, clear that by virtue of section 165, at any time after the authority to levy the tax has been acquired by the Janpada Panchayat, the State Government can exercise any of these powers if it deems fit to do so. In other words, it is not as if there is no provision in the Act to control the action of the Janpada Panchayat after the tax has been duly imposed and brought into force. This power has been expressly given to the State Government. If the counsel for the respondent No.2 is right, then the power so given to the State Government under section 165 will also he exercisable by the prescribed authority i.e. Collector while deciding an appeal under section 159 of the Act at the instance of any tax-payer. The question therefore, is whether this Court should accept this position simply because the only word used in section 159 is 'imposition' which ordinarily is wide enough to include also the initial stage of acquisition of authority to levy the tax There is yet another consequence which would follow if this Court accepts the construction suggested on behalf of respondent No.2. The result would be that every taxpayer would be entitled to file a separate appeal challenging even the authority to levy the tax and this can go on endlessly after the tax has been brought into force. May be, every tax-payer can also repeat his challenge with each demand for payment of the tax. The result would be that every taxpayer would be entitled to file a separate appeal challenging even the authority to levy the tax and this can go on endlessly after the tax has been brought into force. May be, every tax-payer can also repeat his challenge with each demand for payment of the tax. This appears to be a very unusual consequence and unless such a construction is inevitable, it would be appropriate to reject the same for the absurdity it would lead to. Section 159 provides for an appeal in the manner prescribed. As such the rules framed for the purpose also are relevant for constructing the word 'imposition' occurring in section 159. Two sets of rules framed by the Slate Government known as the 'Madhya Pradesh' Janpada Panchayats Theatre Tax (Regulations of the Imposition, Assessment and Collection) Rules, 1963' and those firmed in 1962 under section 159 may also be referred to. The 1963 rules use the word 'imposition' loosely in connection with the tax as appears from rule 3 even though the heading speaks of imposition assessment and collection as three distinct stages, similar to sub-section (1) of section 158. Thereafter rule 8 therein provides for the mode of recovery of the tax by giving a written notice calling upon the defaulter to pay the same within the specified period. The 1962 Appeal rules framed under section 159 are to regulate the manner of filing and disposal of appeals. Rule 2 therein requires an appeal to be filed within thirty days from the date on which the demand for such tax is made. The demand far tax can be made only after it has became due and not earlier. Rule 3 requires that all taxes due up to the date of such appeal must be paid before the appeal can be entertained. It further lays down that the appellate authority may, after hearing the parties, confirm, vary or set aside the imposition of the tax. These rules throughout refer to imposition of tax while meaning assessment and collection. The significant things are that no appeal can be filed till after a demand far payment of the tax is made and that the appellate Authority can also vary or set aside the imposition. If a case far its confirmation is not made out. These rules throughout refer to imposition of tax while meaning assessment and collection. The significant things are that no appeal can be filed till after a demand far payment of the tax is made and that the appellate Authority can also vary or set aside the imposition. If a case far its confirmation is not made out. Thus in these rules also the word 'imposition' appears to' have been used not in the ordinary sense of also including the autharity to levy tax but confined to' the stage commencing with the assessment and ending with the collection of the tax. In this connection the third set of rules which also throw same light are "Madhya Pradesh Janpada Panchayat Toll Tax on New Bridges (Regulation of Imposition, Assessment and Collection) Rules, 1964" These are the corresponding rules far 'Toll-tax. Incidentally rule 4 therein while laying down the procedure far imposition of 'Toll-tax' provides far publication of the proposal to impose the tax, filing of abjections and consideration of these objections before decision to impose the tax is taken. In view of the provision far objections in case of "Toll-tax" it cannot be doubted that the scope of an appeal in connection with 'Toll-tax' cannot include a challenge to 'authority to' levy tax. In the present case, in view of the context or the setting in which the ward 'imposition' occurs in section 159 of the Act, it must be construed to mean the stage of taxation commencing with the assessment or quantification of tax with reference to an ascertained person and it does not include the initial stage of decision to levy the tax itself or acquisition of that power, Such a construction is quite permissible, it being held authentitatively that the meaning of the word 'imposition' does not necessarily include the initial stage of acquisition of authority to levy the tax. Such a view, would avoid the absurdity resulting from the other view, as indicated earlier, and would be in harm any with section 158 (2) also. Municipality of Anand v. State of Bombay and another, AIR 1962 SC 988 , relied on. 2. Such a view, would avoid the absurdity resulting from the other view, as indicated earlier, and would be in harm any with section 158 (2) also. Municipality of Anand v. State of Bombay and another, AIR 1962 SC 988 , relied on. 2. This Court is, therefore, of the appellant that section 159 of the Act does not permit an appeal against the decision to levy the tax and that it lies only against the assessment or quantification of tax made against any tax-payer after the levy has been brought into farce. On this conclusion, there is no dispute that the appeal filed before the Collector by the respondent No.2 was wholly incompetent and consequently the order Annexure J, dated 23-7-1973 passed by the Collector was without jurisdiction and must be quashed. 3. It was also contended on behalf of respondent No.2 that the impugned order Annexure J, having been passed with the consent of parties, no challenge to the same should be permitted. This is a case in which this Court is not inclined to refuse the relief only on this ground. In the first place, the impugned order was wholly without authority. Secondly the question involved being of frequent occurrence, it would be more desirable to decide the same and not to leave it open. This objection is, therefore, rejected. Petition allowed.