2016 (4) TMI 679 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking direction to grant entertainment tax exemption to the movie - After rejection of the application for grant of exemption of entertainment tax, now, by the new Government Order issued on 31.03.2016, the first respondent had taken a different stand stating that the petitioner s movie is entitled for exemption of entertainment tax only from the date of issuance of the Government Order i.e., 31.03.2016. Held that - when the petitioner had applied for the exemption on 16.12.2015 and the respondent had rejected the same by its order dated 31.12.2015 and when the respondents are taking a different stand by giving exemption to the petitioner s movie, they cannot now say that the exemption will come into effect only from 31.03.2016 and not from the date of release of the movie. Once the first respondent had decided to grant exemption of the entertainment tax, exemption should come into effect only from the date of release of the movie and not from the date of issuance of the Government Order. The Order passed by the first respondent dated 31.12.2015 is proved to be erroneous, by the issuance of the present Government Order dated 31.03.2016. By following the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others 2015 (9) TMI 370 - SUPREME COURT , order passed by the first respondent, is liable to be set aside. The petitioner s tamil movie g fH; is entitled for exemption of entertainment tax from the date of release i.e., on 18.03.2016. - Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues:
Grant of entertainment tax exemption to a movie based on divided opinions of the viewing committee, discrepancy in the effective date of exemption, and the applicability of a previous judgment on the case.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge the rejection of their request for entertainment tax exemption for a Tamil movie. The rejection was based on an equally divided opinion of the viewing committee, as per a Circular dated 09.01.2012. The first respondent refused the exemption on 31.12.2015 due to the divided opinions. The petitioner requested a fresh committee to view the movie before its release on 18.03.2016. The court directed the constitution of a new committee comprising five members to review the film. The new committee unanimously recommended granting the exemption, leading to the court's directive for the respondents to process the application based on this report.

Subsequently, the respondents decided to grant the entertainment tax exemption to the movie but stated in a Government Order dated 31.03.2016 that the exemption would be effective only from the date of the order, not from the movie's release date. The petitioner argued that once a decision to grant exemption is made, it should be effective from the release date, not the order date. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment (2016 (1) SCC 560) emphasizing that the government should speak with one voice in policy decisions. The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the exemption should be granted from the movie's release date, not the order date. The court set aside the earlier rejection and granted the exemption from the movie's release date, 18.03.2016, citing the applicability of the previous judgment.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the earlier rejection and granting the entertainment tax exemption to the movie from its release date. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistency in government policy decisions and the need for exemptions to align with the movie's release date, as per the previous legal precedent cited.