SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(All) 314

M.C.AGARWAL, R.K.AGRAWAL
SHITLA PRASAD DUBEY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.KUMAR

M. C. AGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) ALL these petitions that have been filed by the same petitioners are inter linked and the main controversy is the same. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE business of exhibition of films in a cinema house is regulated by the statutory provisions contained in U. P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955 and the U. P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951. The exhibition of films in a cinema house involves entertainment and, therefore, the owner of a cinema house is liable to pay entertainment tax under the provisions of the U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979.

( 3 ) IN order to promote construction of new permanent cinema houses in small towns in the State of U. P. , the Government had notified a scheme through a Government Order dated 17th of Oct. 1983 whereunder the entertainment tax realised by owner of a cinema house from the viewers could be retained by him by way of grant in aid. The scheme did not attract sufficient response and, therefore, the scheme was modified Government Order dated 21st of July, 1986, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to writ petition No. 20486 of 1989. It is admitted that it is this






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top