Advocates:
['M/S K VAITHEESWARAN', '', 'RADHIKA CHANDRA SEKHAR', 'V S MANOJ', 'V SUNDARESWARAN']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.02.2015

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

and

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

W.P. No.12504 of 2014

Siddharth Suryanarayan

...Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India

Secretary Ministry of Finance

Department of Revenue

North Block,

New Delhi 110 001.

2.The Central Board of Excise and Customs

North Block,

New Delhi 110 001.

3.The Commissioner of Service Tax

MHU Complex,

No.692, Anna Salai, Nandanam

Chennai 600 035.

...Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

praying for the issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring that

Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 (Entry 16) in so far as it

provides for an exemption in respect of services provided by a

performing artist in folk or classical art forms of music, dance or

theatre from service tax leviable under Section 66-B of the Finance

Act 1994 as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)

of the Constitution of India in the absence of the same benefit being

extended to other performing artist namely film actor.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Petitioner

:

Mr.K.Vaitheeswaran

For Respondents

:

Mr.V.Sundaraswaran

Central Government Standing Counsel

O R D E R

(Judgment of Court was made by The Honourable Chief Justice)

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to

assail the notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 (1960) providing

for an exemption in respect of services provided by performing artist

or folk or classical art forms of music, dance or theatre from the

liability towards service tax under Section 66-B of the Finance Act,

1994. This notification is assailed on the ground that it is

discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution of India inasmuch as the same benefit is not extended

to other performing artistes namely film actors. The petitioner

claims to be an actor in movies and submits that his job involves

skills to display different kinds of emotions, dialogue delivery

skills and acting characters specified by film Director. These

skills are stated to be not different from an actor who performs

with similar skills in theatre or drama.

2. In a nutshell, the plea is that the impugned notification is

arbitrary and discriminatory as it extends only to performing

artistes in theatre and drama and not artistes in films. The

submission is that there is no reasonable basis behind such a

classification.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is

pleaded that the difference is based on the valid differentia

between two categories – (i) film artistes and (ii) native artistes

and culture in theatre form. In fact, one of the glaringly distinct

factors pointed out is the huge expenditure involved as well as the

earnings qua film artistes, as observed in AGS Entertainment Private

Ltd., v. Union of India and two others reported in (2013)32 STR 219.

This is distinct from native art and culture and the requirement to

protect the same being more in the nature of a non-profit activity.

This is in furtherance of Article 29 of the Constitution of India

seeking to give protection to cultural and educational rights and by

preserving the rich heritage of composite culture. Article 29 of the

constitution of India reads as under:

“29.Protection of interests of minorities: (1) Any

section of the citizens residing in the territory of

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

India or any part thereof having a distinct language,

script or culture of its own shall have the right to

conserve the same.

4. It has been stated that the Legislature has in fact classified

the two groups of assessees. The services rendered by performing

artistes in folk or classical art forms of music or dance or theatre,

excluding services provided by th