Chief Justice’s Court

Serial No.3040/E-File

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

***

WRIT TAX No.194 of 2022

Pronounced on : January 18, 2023

Rajendra Pratap Singh

…..Petitioner

Through :

Mr. Shambhu Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms.

Mahima Jaiswal, Advocate

v.

State of U.P. and others

…..Respondents

Through :

Mr. Nimai Dass, Additional Chief Standing

Counsel with Mr. Apurva Hajela, Standing

Counsel for the respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE J.J. MUNIR, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

The present writ petition has been filed praying for quashing

of an order dated July 13, 2021 passed by the Joint Secretary, State Tax

Department, U.P., Annexure-1 to the writ petition, vide which the claim of

the petitioner for providing subsidiary grant after he had set up a cinema

hall in rural area was rejected. Further challenge has been made to

recovery notice dated August 24, 2021 issued by Assistant Commissioner,

Trade Tax, Chandauli, Anneuxre-27 to the writ petition. Further, a

direction has been sought to respondent No.1 to provide subsidiary grant

to the petitioner with reference to the period mentioned in the scheme

dated July 21, 1986.

2.

Mr. Shambhu Chopra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

the petitioner submitted that the Government had come out with a scheme

dated July 21, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Scheme") pertaining to

setting up of new permanent cinema halls. Under the Scheme, such

cinema halls, for first year, were to be paid subsidiary grant equal to 100%

2 Writ Tax No.194 of 2022

of the amount of entertainment tax payable with regard to the movie

exhibited. Thereafter, for second and third year they were to be paid equal to

74% and 50% of the entertainment tax, respectively. The idea was to

promote setting up of more means of entertainment in the rural areas, for

which the Scheme was meant. One of the clause of the Scheme provided that

benefit will be available to any entrepreneur, who applies for licence to run a

cinema hall between January 1, 1984 to March 31, 1990. In the case in hand,

the petitioner had applied for licence on February 26, 1990. Mr. Chopra

submitted that the case of the petitioner having been recommended by the

different authorities keeping in view the fact that the Scheme was an

exercise of the State for grant of certain benefits, liberal construction was

required but still despite his repeated attempts the benefit was not granted to

him. The petitioner had set up the cinema hall relying upon the Scheme.

3.

Mr. Chopra, learned Senior Advocate further contended that

licence was granted to the petitioner under the Uttar Pradesh Cinematograph

Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") for running the cinema

hall from February 21, 1991 and any delay in the process was in the hands of

the respondents, which was beyond the control of the petitioner. He further

submitted that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing

was afforded to the petitioner despite earlier order passed by this Court, as a

result of which he was unable to present his case before the authority

concerned for proper consideration.

4.

The contention has also been raised that the Scheme does not

provide anywhere that construction of the cinema hall has to be completed

upto March 31, 1990, as it only provided filing of an application for grant of

licence to run the cinema hall, which the petitioner had filed. The licence

was granted to him on February 21, 1991, which clearly establishes that the

petitioner had fulfilled all the conditions laid down for the purpose. The

issue sought to be raised in the present petition is to the decision making

process adopted by the State, which should have been fair. Any decision

taken after following due process has to be examined thereafter on merit. He

further referred to certain examples where, according to the petitioner,

3 Writ Tax No.194 of 2022

benefit