ORDER :

Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.

The Writ Petition No.13373 of 2007 is filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (C.T.IV), dated 01.08.2005, in fixing a lower of rate of entertainment tax for high and low budget Telugu films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh, to that of films produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh for the same areas and same facilities as discriminatory and contrary to law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Aashirwad Films v. Union of India (UOI) and others (Civil Appeal No.709 of 2004, dated 18.05.2007). Consequently to direct the respondents to collect the entertainment tax for the film ‘Shivaji’ produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, on par with the films produced in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Writ Petition No.14840 of 2007 is filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (C.T.IV), dated 01.08.2005 in fixing a lower of rate of tax for high and low budget Telugu films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh to that of films produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh for the same areas and same facilities as discriminatory and contrary to law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Aashirwad Films v. Union of India (UOI) and others (Civil Appeal No.709 of 2004, dated 18.05.2007). Consequently to direct the respondents to collect the entertainment tax for the films “APNE”, “AWARAPAN” and “NAKAAB” produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh on par with high budget Telugu films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

3. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions being common, we proceed to decide and dispose of these writ petitions by this common order.

4. It contended by the counsel for the petitioners that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Aashirwad Films (supra) at paragraph-25 held that “the State cannot impose two sets of taxes basing on the languages”, which is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the instant case also, the respondent-State has imposed two sets of taxes for the Telugu high and low budget films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (C.T.IV), dated 01.08.2005 and other rate of tax for the films produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh vide Act 32 of 2005, dated 04.06.2005. As such the same is discriminatory in nature, unconstitutional and also violative of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashirvad Films (supra).

6. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents that vide G.O.Ms.No.1481 dated 01.08.2005, the State has given concession rate of tax for the high and low budget Telugu films, which are produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh only, so as to encourage the growth of the film production in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said concessional rate in taxes under the G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (CT.IV) dated 01.08.2005 cannot be said as discriminatory and unconstitutional. He further contended that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in Aashirwad Films (supra), has no application to the facts of this case.

7. We have given earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel Sri K.Durga Prasad for petitioners and Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax and perused the material on record.

8. As seen from the G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (CT.IV) dated 01.08.2005, the rate of Rate entertainment tax was fixed at 15% for high and low Telugu films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh, whereas, as per Act No.32/2005 4.6.2005 the tax was fixed at 20% for the films produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. Further, the said variation is based on place of production, but not on language, as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. In the light of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the said concession is given to the films produced in Andhra Pradesh, to give encouragement for production of films in the State