Back
AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Reserved on 21/01/2021 Order Delivered on 12/02/2021 Review Petition No. 232 of 2019 {Arising out of Order dated 16.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition (T) No. 47 of 2016 by the learned Division Bench}
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax Excise, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Commissioner Department of Excise, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. The Assistant Commissioner Department of Excise, Raipur, District Raipur.
5. The Collector Excise, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6. The Collector Excise Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
7. The Collector Excise, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicants Versus M/s. PVR Ltd. A Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 Having its Registered Office At 61, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi- 110057. Through Its Authorized Representative And General Manager Legal- Shri Prahlad Singh, S/o Late Shri R.S. Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. House No.
226, First Floor, I.P. Colony, Sector 30, Faridabad Haryana, Delhi.
---- Respondent REVP No. 64 of 2020 {Arising out of Order dated 16.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition (T) No. 3 of 2017 by the learned Division Bench}
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax Excise, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Commissioner Department of Excise, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. The Assistant Commissioner Department of Excise, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5. The Collector Excise, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicants Versus Inox Leisure Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At ABS Towers, Old Padra, Vadodara, 390007 Gujarat And Inter Alia A Condominium of Four Screens Multiplex Cinema At City Mall 36, Village New Purena, G.E. Road, Labhandi, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Its Authorized Representative And General Manager Mr. Rohit Ghosh, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent REVP No. 65 of 2020 {Arising out of Order dated 16.11.2018 passed in Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2016 by the learned Division Bench}
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax Excise, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. The Commissioner Department of Excise, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5. The Additional Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
6. The Assistant Commissioner Department of Excise, Raipur, District Raipur.
7. The Collector Excise, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
8. The Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicants Versus
1. Avinash Developers Private Limited, through the Managing Director Anand Singhania R/o Avinash House, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur, P.S. Azad Chowk, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Anand Singhania S/o Shri Santosh Singhania, aged about 42 Years R/o Madhuban, Geeta Nagar, Behind Barun Honda Showroom G.E. Road, Raipur, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. PVR Limited 61, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi 110057 District New Delhi. ---- Respondents REVP No. 66 of 2020 {Arising out of Order dated 16.11.2018 passed in Writ Appeal No. 150 of 2016 by the learned Division Bench}
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Excise, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax Excise, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. The Commissioner Department of Excise, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5. The Additional Commissioner Department of Excise, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
6. The Assistant Commissioner Department of Excise, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
7. The Collector Excise, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
8. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.
---- Applicants Versus
1. PVR Ltd. a Company incorporated in India under the provision of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at 61 Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi- 110057, Delhi
2. Avinash Developers Private Limited, through the Managing Director Anand Singhania R/o Avinash House, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur, P.S. Azad Chowk, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Anand Singhania S/o Shri Santosh Singhania Aged About 42 Years R/o Madhuban, Geeta Nagar, Behind Barun Honda Showroom G.E. Road, Raipur, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicants/Review Petitioner/ State : Shri Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.
For Respondent {In Review Petition No. : Shri Sumit Nema, Senior Advocate
232/2019, 64/2020, 65/2020 & 66/2020}-
with Shri Varun Chopra and Shri M/s. PVR and Inox Leisure Ltd.
Anand Dadariya, Advocates.
For Respondent {In Review Petition No. : Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate.
65/2020 & 66/2020}-Avinash Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anand Singhania Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
['A G', 'ANAND DADARIYA', '', 'ASHISH SURANA']
C A V ORDER
Per P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice
1. These review petitions have been filed by the State who was a Respondent in Writ Petition (T) No. 47 of 2016, Writ Petition (T) No. 3 of 2017, Writ Appeal No. 150 of 2016 and Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2016. It is pursuant to the right reserved in favour of them by the Apex Court, while dismissing the SLPs as withdrawn, to file review petition before this Court {vide order dated 26.07.2019 in respect of Writ Petition (T) No. 47 of 2016, Writ Appeal No. 150 of 2016 and Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2016, and order dated 23.08.2019 in respect of Writ Petition (T) No. 3 of 2017) against the verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the matters as mentioned above, that they are before this Court again.
2. The subject matter relates to the eligibility to get the benefit of subsidy in terms of the Chhattisgarh Naye Cinemagharon Ya Multiplex Cinemagharon Ke Nirman Ko Protsahan Yojna Ke Sahayta Anudan Niyam, 1982 (‘for short, ‘the 1982 Rules’). The review petitions have been filed mainly on two grounds, firstly, contending that the writ petitioners are not coming within the purview of eligibility under the above Rules not being the ‘Swamis’ (Proprietor) which was not properly considered and secondly, that the scope of Rule 3 of the 1982 Rules with reference to the date of commencement of operation of Cinema Hall/Multiplex was never adjudicated by the Bench while finalizing the matter.
3. Coming to the sequence of events, the claim for granting benefits under the 1982 Rules to the writ petitioners was turned down by the authorities concerned which was sought to be challenged by filing Writ Petition (T) No. 1364 of 2014 {Avinash Developers Private Limited & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others} wherein a declaration was sought that the Petitioners were eligible and entitled for the benefits/grants/incentives in the form of subsidy under the 1982 Rules. The writ petition came to be allowed as per judgment dated 22.01.2016 whereby the impugned orders were quashed making it clear that the Petitioners 1 and 2, being the owners of the Mall/Multiplex, were entitled to avail the benefit conferred under the Rules of 1982 with effect from 04.03.2010. Being aggrieved of the said direction, the State preferred an appeal in respect of the benefit granted to the 1st and 2nd Petitioners while the 3rd Petitioner sought to challenge it for denying the benefit, besides challenging the vires of the 1982 Rules as per Writ Petition (T) No. 47 of 2016.
4. It is seen that all the above matters were heard and finalized by the same Bench on the same date i.e. on 16.11.2018. A detailed judgment was passed in Writ Petition (T) No. 47 of 2016 making a threadbare analysis to find out the meaning of the word ‘Swami’, which in fact is not defined under the 1982 Rules. It was however sought to be connected with reference to the quantum of benefit payable under the Rules by way of refund of entertainment tax paid/payable in the context of definition of the term ‘Proprietor’ under Section 2(f) and such other provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936 (for short ‘the 1936 Act’) as adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh.
5. Reference was also made to various other provisions of the 1936 Act, particularly Section 3 casting a duty upon the proprietor to satisfy the tax; Section 9(a) of the 1936 Act, provisions of the Chhattisgarh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 {for short ‘the 1952 Act’} and the Chhattisgarh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1972 {for short, ‘the 1972 Rules’}. Rule 2(g) of the 1972 Rules which defines the term ‘licencee’ / ‘holder of licence’ (which includes the Manager or Managers nominated under Rule 108); the scope of Rule 108 of the 1972 Rules which stipulates that the licencee or his nominee to be present; the conditions and restrictions for the holder of licence (under Rule 101 and 120 of the 1972 Rules) etc. were also discussed. It was accordingly h
