2015 (5) TMI 156 - HC - Indian Laws

Exemption of entertainment tax - Benefit of the Gazette Notification dated 22.7.2009 - Held that - Court is in agreement with the stand taken on behalf of the respondent State. It is evident from the letter of the petitioner dated 11.6.2010 that admittedly she had started the work of upgradation and modernization as early as on 15.5.2010 without making any such application as was required by the Gazette Notification dated 22.7.2009. The petitioner is therefore estopped from claiming any benefit under the said notification and even otherwise the suppression of facts would additionally disentitle the relief to the petitioner by a Court of equity which the Writ Court undoubtedly is. - petitioner is neither entitled to the benefit of the Gazette Notification dated 22.7.2009 nor any relief in the writ jurisdiction of this Court on account of her conduct while approaching this Court. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of order rejecting entertainment tax exemption claim.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash an order rejecting their claim for exemption of entertainment tax under a Gazette Notification. The notification exempted cinema houses on upgradation and modernization for a specified period or recovery of capital investment. The petitioner claimed to have filed an application for upgradation and modernization, stating the expenditure involved. However, the State argued that the petitioner had started the work without prior permission and had not approached the authorities as required by the notification. The State contended that the petitioner's actions were an afterthought to benefit from the notification. The Court agreed with the State, noting that the petitioner had started the work without following the required procedure, thereby disentitling them from any relief under the notification or in the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

The Court found that the petitioner had initiated upgradation and modernization work without the necessary application and permission as mandated by the Gazette Notification. The petitioner's actions were deemed to be in violation of the notification's requirements, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to any benefit under the notification. Additionally, the Court highlighted that the petitioner's suppression of facts and unclean hands further prevented them from seeking relief in equity through the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ application, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Gazette Notification or any relief from the Court due to their conduct in approaching the Court.