9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have secured double benefit-one by way of grant-in-aid and other by way of recovering maintenance charges from the cinema-goers exempt from payment of entertainment tax and there is nothing wrong in the Legislature having chosen not to confer such double benefit on the cinema owners already enjoying benefit of an incentive scheme of the State Government, Moreover, it cannot be lost sight of mat the incentive schemes releasing the grant-in-aid were optional. There was no compulsion on the cinema owners to opt for the incentive scheme and have grant-in-aid released to them. Such option was available at the commencement of the scheme and remained available throughout. Such of the cinema owners as felt that the fixation of Rs. 2.50 or Rs.5 as a ceiling on fee for admission was not beneficial to them and they would stand to benefit by opting out from the incentive scheme and availing the benefit of recovering charges for maintenance conferred by the 1992 amendment were always and at any time free to do so. For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the Division Bench was not right in passing the order dated 10.7.1995 striking down the amendment impugned before it. - App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was available to such permanent cinema houses as fixed admission rate at not exceeding Rs. 5. The U.P. Cinemas and Taxation laws Amendment Act, 1989 (U.P. Act No,12 of 1989) introduced Section 3-A in the body of the main Act which by an overriding effect over other provisions of the Act authorised the proprietor of a centrally air-cooled or centrally airconditioned cinema to realise, subject to prior permission of the District Magistrate, an extra charge of 10 paisa and 25 paisa respectively over and above the admission fee during the period commencing on the 15th day of March and ending on the 15th day of September every year which amount was not to be taken into account for calculating the entertainment tax if the same was spent for providing the air-cooling or air-conditioning facility, as the case may be. The above said Section 3A was further amended by Act No. 14 of 1992. Section 3A in its amended form along with the proviso appended to sub-section .(1),. which proviso is the bone of contention, is reproduced hereunder:- "[3-A. Extra charges for maintenance of cinema and] air-cooled and air conditioned facility. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and hence fell foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. Civil Appeal No. 664/97 State of U.P. v. Kamla Palace and 53 other appeals C,A. Nos. 2150-2157, 2159-2177 and. 2-179-2204/97 have been preferred against the Division Bench judgment dated 10.7.1995. It appears that there were other writ petitions also which were not disposed of by the common Division Bench judgment dated 10.7.1995. They came to be heard by another Division Bench of that High Court which formed an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken in the Division Bench judgment dated 10.7.1995. Having recorded its dissension, the Division Bench by its order dated 17.8.1995 directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice who was pleased to constitute a Full Bench to resolve the controversy. The Full Bench heard the matters in the writ petition filed by Natraj Chabigrah, Sigra. By its judgment dated 22.3.1996 (reported as AIR 1996 Allahabad 375) the Full Bench overruled the Division Bench decision dated 10.7.1995 in Kamla Palace (supra). Civil Appeal No. 663/1997-Sushil Bhasin v. State of UP. and C.A. Nos. 2563, 4643, 8718 of 1997 and SLP(C) No. 11464/1198 have been filed by different cinema houses/ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment and the cinemas not so receiving the grant-in-aid is substantial and well-defined. The incentive scheme is optional and adopted as a temporary measure by the State Government for encouraging permanent cinema houses located in particular localities indentifiable by reference to population statistics of the previous census. The benefit conferred by the incentive scheme is conditional upon the cinema limiting its admission rate inclusive of taxes to a maximum which was Rs. 2.50 initially, revised to Rs. 5 in the latter schemes. Such cinema houses are clearly distinguishable from those which do not take benefit of the incentive scheme either because they do not opt for it by entering into an agreement thereunder or because they choose to appoint the rate of admission at above Rs.5. The cinemas falling in the later category are entitled to make an extra charge of 25 paisa (later on revised to 1 rupee) which has to be utilised for maintenance of the cinema premises. We are of the opinion that the challenge laid to the Constitutional validity of the proviso abovesaid is without any merit and must fail. It was rightly turned down by the Full Bench in its order dated 22.3.1996, The v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates of taxation, benefits or concessions. In the field of taxation if the test of Article 14 is satisfied by generality of provisions the Court would not substitute judicial wisdom for the legislative wisdom. In the case at hand it will be seen that at the point of time when the impugned provision was enacted, that is in the year 1992, there existed two classes of cinema owners: one, those who were receiving grant-in-aid under some incentive scheme enunciated by the State Government; and two, such cinema owners as were not receiving such grant-in-aid. It will be seen that the grant-in-aid schemes promulgated by the State Government were temporary schemes having a life span of three to five years which extended incentive depending on the population of the place where the cinema house was situated. It can be said, as was the plea raised before the High Court and also submitted by the learned Standing counsel for the State of U.P before us, that the incentive was available on a staggered scale depending on the size of population catered to by the cinemas situated in rural areas. The incentive was by way of grant-in-aid equivalent to certain percentage of the quantum of entertainmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at any time free to do so. For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the Division Bench was not right in passing the order dated 10.7.1995 striking down the amendment impugned before it. The Full Bench of the High Court has rightly upheld the vires of the impugned amendment in its order dated 17.8.1995. Civil Appeal No. 664/97 State of U.P. v. Kamla Palace and 53 other appeals, i.e., C.A. Nos. 2150-2157, 2159-2177 2179-2204/1997 are allowed. The judgment dated 17.7.1995 passed by the Division Bench allowing the writ petitions is set aside. C.A. No: 663/97-Sushil Bhasin v. State of U.P. C.A. Nos. 2563, 4643, 8718/1997 and SLP(C) No. 11464/1998 are dismissed The judgment of the Full Bench dated 22.3.1996 (reported as AIR 1996 Allahabad 375) is confirmed. C.A. No. 662/1997 preferred against the order of the Division Bench dated 14.11.1996 rejecting the application for review of the order dated 10 7 1995 is rendered redundant and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs in any of the appeals, Before parting we would like to make it clear that some of the cinema owners have collected the amount of maintenance charges under the 1992 amendment un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
