9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner. Writ petition deserves to be allowed - Writ Tax No. 941 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2009 - PRAKASH KRISHNA AND ABHINAVA UPADHYA , JJ. Heard Shri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Avinash Tripathi, learned counsel for the Revenue. The petitioner applied for construction of cinema hall in town area Goverdhan, District Mathura, which has population of less than twenty thousand. After fulfilment of the requisite formalities, regarding finalisation of site plan, sanctioning of map and documents regarding ownership of the land, etc., the Prabhari Adhikari, town area vide its order dated April 6, 1987 granted permission for the aforesaid construction. The petitioner also applied for necessary directions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the requirement of rule 3(3) of the Cinematograph Rules, 1951, but the District Magistrate as well as the State Government passed an order to the effect that the petitioner will be granted exemption from the requirement of rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1951, only if he files an agreement that he will not claim the benefit under the said promotion scheme. According to the petitioner once the composition charge of Rs. 50,000 was accepted by the authorities, the requirement of rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1951, stood automatically waived and the petitioner ought to have been given the relevant licence. The petitioner had no option, but to challenge the aforesaid order by filing the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20418 of 1989 before this court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posited Rs. 50,000 as composition charges, which was for this very purpose, and therefore, he was entitled for the benefit of exemption from payment of entertainment tax under the said promotion scheme. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which the same technical stand has been taken that since the permission for starting the construction was not obtained, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled. However, in paragraph No. 19 of the counter-affidavit, it has been admitted that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 50,000 as composition charges. Since composition fee was paid and accepted, any irregularity that may have been committed stood regularised. Therefore, only on this account, the benefit of promotion scheme cannot be denied to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
