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

2021 Supreme(MP) 208

SUJOY PAUL, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA
Satyam Cineplexes Ltd. (M/s) – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Sumit Nema with Gagan Tiwari and Piyush Parashar for petitioner;
Pushyamitra Bhargav, Additional Advocate General with P. Sen for respondent/State.

ORDER

Paul, J. -- 1. The interesting conundrum in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the benefit of exemption of entertainment tax is available only to the owner of a multiplex or it can be extended to a lessee as well ?

2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that petitioner is a Limited Company duly registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of exhibiting feature films on commercial basis in its various cinema complexes all over the country including at Indore. The multiplexes are situated at C-21 Mall, A.B. Road, Indore. The petitioner company is duly registered under the M.P. Vat Act, 2002 with effect from 12.11.2009.

3. The Government of Madhya Pradesh introduced a policy on Integrated Family Entertainment Centres (Multiplex Complexes) with an object of improving the quality and facility of cinema halls in the State. The said policy came into being with effect from 25.10.2001 which provides for establishment of multiplex complexes within 10 kilometer of municipal limits of four major citie

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