Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(DIVISION BENCH)
Sujoy Paul and Shailendra Shukla, JJ.
Satyam Cineplexes Ltd. (M/s) v. State of M.P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 4694 of 2014 (Indore); Decided on 9.2.2021
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- maintainability of petition -- availability of alternative remedy -- despite availability of alternative remedy, petition was entertained way back on 28.7.2014 -- question involved legal in nature -- no factual inquiry required -- after almost six years, not proper to relegate petitioner to avail alternative remedy. 1995 MPLJ 969 relied on. (1970) 2 SCC 355 referred to. [Para 15]
(2) Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936 (M.P.) -- Ss. 2 (f), 3 and 7 -- 'proprietor' -- notification dated 7.10.2008 u/s.7 of Act of 1936 granted exemption from entertainment tax -- whether benefit available only to owner of multiplex or can be extended to lessee as well -- petitioner's application seeking exemption preferred on behalf of Satyam Cineplexes Limited and signed by its owner/Managing Director -- neither notification, nor policy issued as executive fiat contains definition of 'proprietor' -- to ascertain meaning and definition of proprietor, Court needs to lookinto definition clause in S. 2(f) of Act of 1936 -- petitioner covered by definition of S. 2(f) -- can certainly claim benefit of exemption -- definition of 'proprietor'wide enough to include person incharge of or responsible for management of cinema house. 1983 MPLJ FB 254 1983 RN 205 (FB), 2018 (2) JLJ 210, 1980 MPLJ 221 and WPT No. 47 of 2016 decided on 16.11.2018 (CG) relied on. (2018) 9 SCC 1, 1986 SCC Online Ker. 345 and (1997) 5 SCC 482 referred to. [Paras 17, 18 & 21]
(3) Law -- hierarchy -- (1) Constitution of India -- (2) statutory law, which may be either Parliamentary law or law made by State Legislature -- (3) delegated or subordinate legislation, which may be in form of rules or regulations -- (4) administrative orders or executive instructions without any statutory backing. (2006) 12 SCC 583 referred to. [Para 22]
(4) Interpretation of Statute -- conflict between provisions of Act and provisions of rules or executive instructions -- Act will prevail - no executive instructions can prevail or assign different meaning than that provided in parent Act. WPT No. 47 of 2016 decided on 16.11.2018 (CG) agreed with. [Para 22]
(5) Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936 (M. P.) -- Ss. 2 (f), 3 and 7 -- definition of 'proprietor' -- covers person responsible for time being or in-charge of management of entertainment -- enabling provision of S. 7 not aimed towards'owner' or 'applicant' who preferred application for benefit of exemption -- must be extended in favour of lessee. 1999 (1) Supp. SCR 192, (1997) 5SCC 482 and (2005) 6 SCC 292 followed. 1986 SCC Online Ker. 345 relied on. distinguished. [Para 23]
(6) Order -- validity of order of statutory authority -- must be judged on basis of grounds mentioned therein -- it cannot be supported by assigning different reasons in Court by filing counter affidavit. (1978) 1 SCC 405 followed. [Para 25]
¼1½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & ;kfpdk pykus ;¨X; g¨uk & vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyCèkrk & vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyCèkrk d¢ ckotwn ;kfpdk cgqr igys 28-7-2014 d¨ xzg.k dj yh xà Fkh & varoZfyr ç'u fofèkd çÑfr dk & rF;kRed tk¡p vko';d ugha & yxÒx Ng o"kZ i'pkr~ ;kph d¨ vkuqdfYid mipkj d¢ fy, y©Vkuk mfpr ughaA 1995 ,e ih ,y ts 969 voyafcrA ¼1970½ 2 ,l lh lh 355 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 15½
¼2½ eu¨jatu dj rFkk foKkiu dj vfèkfu;e] 1936 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 2 ¼p½] 3 rFkk 7 ^^Lokeh** & lu~ 1936 d¢ vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 7 d¢ vèkhu vfèklwpuk fnukad 7-10-2008 }kjk eu¨jatu dj ls NwV çnRr & Qk;nk eYVhIySDl d¢ Lokeh d¨ gh miyCèk gS vFkok iV~Vsnkj d¨ Òh & NwV dh ÃIlk dk ;kph dk vkosnu lR;e flusIySDlsl fyfeVsM dh v¨j ls çLrqr rFkk mld¢ Lokeh@çcaèku funs'kd }kjk gLrk{kfjr & u r¨ vfèklwpuk esa] v©j u dk;Zikfyd vkKk d¢ :i esa tkjh uhfr esa gh ^^Lokeh** dh ifjÒk"kk varfoZ"V & Lokeh dk vFkZ v©j ifjÒk"kk vfÒfuf'pr djus d¢ fy, U;k;ky; }kjk lu~ 1936 d¢ vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 2 ¼p½ dk ifjÒk"kk [kaM ns[kk tkuk vko';d & ;kph èkkjk 2 ¼p½ dh ifjÒk"kk ls vkPNkfnr & fuf'pr :i ls NwV d¢ Qk;ns dk nkok dj ldrk gS & ^^Lokeh** dh ifjÒk"kk flusekx`g d¢ çcaèku d¢ çÒkjh ;k mud¢ fy, mÙkjnk;h O;fDr d¨ lfEeyr djus d¢ fy, i;kZIrr% foLr`rA 1983 jk fu 205 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] 2018 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 210 1980 ,e ih ,y ts 221 rFkk MCY;w ih Vh Øekad 47 lu~ 2016 fu.kÊr fnukad 16-11-2018 ¼Nx½ voyafcrA ¼2018½ 9 ,l lh lh 1] 1986 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu d¢jy 345 rFkk ¼1997½ 5 ,l lh lh 482 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 17] 18 ,oa 19½
¼3½ fofèk & vfèkØe & ¼1½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & ¼2½ dkuwuh fofèk] t¨ lalnh; fofèk g¨ ldrh gS vFkok jkT; foèkku eaMy }kjk cukà xà fofèk & ¼3½ çR;k;¨ftr vFkok vèkhuLFk foèkku] t¨ fu;e¨a vFkok fofu;e¨a d¢ :i esa g¨ ldrk gS & ¼4½ dkuwuh lacy jfgr ç'kklfud vkns'k ;k dk;Zikfyd vuqns'kA ¼2006½ 12 ,l lh lh 583 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 22½
¼4½ fofèk dk fuoZpu & vfèkfu;e d¢ micaèk¨a rFkk fu;e¨a d¢ micaèk¨a ;k dk;Zikfyd vuqns'k¨a d¢ eè; foj¨èk & vfèkfu;e vfÒÒkoh g¨xk & dk;Zikfyd vuqns'k vfÒÒkoh ugha g¨ ldrk v©j u ml vFkZ ls fÒUu vFkZ gh ns ldrk gS] t¨ ewy vfèkfu;e esa micafèkr gSaA MCY;w ih Vh Øekad 47 lu~ 2016 fu.kÊr fnukad 16-11-2018 ¼Nx½ ls lgerA ¼iSjk 22½
¼5½ eu¨jatu dj rFkk foKkiu dj vfèkfu;e] 1936 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 2 ¼p½] 3 rFkk 7 & ^^Lokeh** dh ifjÒk"kk & eu¨jatu d¢ çcaèku d¢ fy, rRle; mÙkjnk;h ;k çÒkjh O;fDr vkPNkfnr gS & èkkjk 7 d¢ lkeF;Zdkjh micaèk dk y{; og ^^Lokeh** rFkk ^^vkosnd** ugha ftlus NwV d¢ Qk;ns d¢ fy, vkosnu çLrqr fd;k & iV~Vsnkj d¢ i{k esa fn;k gh tkuk pkfg,A 1999 ¼1½ lIyhŒ ,l lh vkj 192] ¼1997½ 5 ,l lh lh 482 rFkk ¼2005½ 6 ,l lh lh 292 vuqlfjrA 1986 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu d¢jy 345 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 23½
¼6½ vkns'k & dkuwuh çkfèkdkjh d¢ vkns'k dh fofèkekU;rk & mlesa mfYyf[kr vkèkkj¨a ij gh fu.kÊr dh tkuk vko';d & U;k;ky; esa çfr&'kiFki= Qkby dj fÒUu dkj.k nsrs gq, leFkZu ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼1978½ 1 ,l lh lh 405 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 25½
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 cities of Madhya Pradesh including Indore. Certain tax exemption and other concessions have been given to encourage the establishment and growth of said multiplexes. The petitioner has filed copy of said policy (Annexure P/1).
4. Shri Sumit Nema, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the government passed entertainment tax exemption policy to attract investment in the multiplex with a view to promote the opening of fully developed multiplexes.
5. The Department of Commercial Tax (Department of Excise), Government of M.P introduced the promotional scheme as per notification dated 7.10.2008 (hereinafter called ‘exemption notification’) (Annexure P/2). The said notification grants exemption for five years to multiplexes from the date of first exhibition of a movie subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. It is argued that said notification was issued in exercise of power conferred on the government u/S.7 of the M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1936”) which was repealed and replaced by the M.P. Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam, 2011 (Act of 2011) thereby exempting Integrated Family Entertainment Centres/multiplex complexes from payment of entertainment duty. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that Sec.3 of the Repealed Act of 1936 is the charging section whereas section 7 gives power of general exemption. It is averred that petitioner established five cinema auditoriums at C-21 Mall, Indore and duly received registration certificate dated 24.11.2009 (Annexure P/3) under M.P. (Regulations) Act 1952 as a cinema operator by the competent authority.
6. The petitioner preferred an application dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure P/4) seeking entertainment tax exemption. In addition, petitioner applied for grant of permission for printing of computerised tickets (Annexure P/5). In due course, the permission was granted by District Collector on 24.12.2009 (Annexure P/6). Every ticket, duly contains a remark ‘entertainment tax exempted’.
7. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Indore wrote a letter dated 8.7.2011 to Divisional Commissioner (Revenue), Indore informing him that the Act of 1936 stood repealed with effect from 1.4.2011. The Divisional Commissioner was accordingly requested that further action in the petitioner’s application needs to be taken by the Department of Commercial Tax. The District Collector (Excise) also wrote a letter to the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) on 3.2.2011 for the same purpose. The Act of 2011 came into force on its publication in the official gazette on 31.3.2011. The petitioner’s application was processed and Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore wrote a letter dated 22.10.2011 to Divisional Commissioner (Revenue), I
SupremeToday
Local authorities must comply with government exemption orders under the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, and cannot impose additional conditions for tax refunds.
The judgment established the applicability of entertainment tax based on the nature of the activities and the public's access to them, as interpreted in various decisions.
Entertainment tax subsidies granted as incentives for constructing cinema infrastructure are capital receipts and do not reduce the cost of assets for depreciation purposess, provided they are not li....
The court upheld the constitutionality of the cess levied on cinema tickets, affirming the State's legislative competence under Entry 62 of List II, Schedule VII of the Constitution, linking it to th....
The definitions of 'entertainment' and 'payment for admission' under the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act are broad enough to encompass award functions and sponsorship amounts, while penalties mus....
The court upheld the discretionary power of the authorities to grant exemption from payment of entertainment tax based on compliance with the conditions stipulated in the policy, and emphasized that ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
