9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em under a leave and licence agreement dated 17th November, 2006 with the Entertainment Society of Goa, which Mr. Faldessai says was an agency and instrumentality of the State Government. This multiplex theatre was constructed by this agency on Government land. To extend benefit of the said Scheme to ILL, would amount to award of bonanza in favour of ILL and unjustly enrich the ILL at the cost of public exchequer. The Respondents have not made out any case that all these theatres were brand new theatres or multiplexes already having upgraded facilities. In fact, there does not appear to be any serious dispute that all these theatres were old theatres which were in bad shape and which required upgradation on account of IFFI. It is precisely these theatres which were intended to be covered under the said Scheme. Therefore, there is no really case of discrimination as such made out by the Respondents. The principle of equality has to be adopted amongst equals. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - First Appeal Nos. 207 and 213 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2019 - M. S. SONAK and PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. Pravin Faldessai , Additional Government Advocate, for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned District Judge, by overemphasizing on clause 4 of the said Scheme, has virtually rendered clauses 2 and 3 of the said Scheme, not to mention the objectives of the said Scheme, totally redundant. 8. Mr. Faldessai submits that the multiplexes in respect of which ILL claims reimbursement of entertainment tax is constructed on Government land by an instrumentality of the Government. The ILL has only been granted a licence to operate the multiplex. The said Scheme was obviously not intended to cover the multiplex of this nature. He submits that award of any relief to ILL would virtually amount to award of bonanza to ILL and its consequent unjust enrichment. He submits that since this aspect has been totally ignored by the learned District Judge, the impugned judgments and decrees warrant interference. 9. Mr. Faldessai submits that Osia Multiplex established by PKK hardly a few days prior to the International Film Festival of India, was already equipped with upgraded facilities. There was no question of further incentivizing PKK. The award of any benefit to PKK in respect of such a upgraded multiplex, at which, PKK, was permitted to charge substantial amount to the consume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y point out that DW1 accepted that there was no reference to utilization certificate in the said Scheme and subsidies were reimbursed to several other theatres who too had not submitted any utilization certificates. They submit that in paragraph 24 of the plaint, the Respondent had given instances of cinema halls/theatres who were granted benefit under the said Scheme. They submit that this is a case of discrimination vis-a-vis the cinema halls/theatres referred to in paragraph 24 of the plaint. For all these reasons, Mr. Desai and Mr. Nadkarni submit that there is absolutely no case made out to warrant interference with the impugned judgments and decrees made by the learned District Judge in the two suits. 15. Mr. Desai and Mr. Nadkarni relied on Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. and others Vs Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd [ (1979) 4 SCC 565 ], Innamuri Gopalan and others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others [ (1964) 2 SCR 888 ], Hansraj Gordhandas V/s H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise Customs, Surat and others [ AIR 1970 SC 755 ], Mathuram Agrawal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh [ (1999) 8 SCC 667 ], G. P. Ceramics Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Scheme is applicable to all the Cinema halls/theatres that are covered under the Goa Entertainment Tax Act, 1964 (Act 2 of 1964) until 21-11-2009 and having valid licence for exhibition under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Central Act 37 of 1952) and under the Goa, Daman and Diu Cinematograph Rules 1965. The benefit however will stop from 22-11- 2009, irrespective of the amount and period of subsidy claimed by the applicant. Subsidy due upto 21-11-2009 will be however processed and disbursed after the expiry of the Scheme. 5. Quantum of subsidy.- (i) Subject to other provisions of this Scheme, the maximum subsidy admissible will be equal to entertainment tax actually paid by the Cinema hall/theatre in respect of entertainment provided by way of cinema shows for a period of 5(five) years, from the date of operation of the Scheme or for shorter period but not for any period beyond 21-11-2009. (ii) The subsidy amount shall be restricted to the entertainment tax paid during the claim period. If any amount is defaulted or belatedly paid, it will not be taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of subsidy and such amount shall stand forfeited to the Government. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount and the balance shall be made over to the cinema theatre or to the financing institutions, as the case may be. 9. Head of Account to which the expenditure will be debited The expenditure towards disbursement of subsidy under this Scheme will be debited to the Budget Head 2045 Other Taxes and duties on Commodities and Services 101 Collection Charges Entertainment Tax 01 Office of the Commissioner of Sales Tax (Non Plan), 76 Subsidies. 10. Amendment of the Scheme The Government may, if it is so required, amend this Scheme. 11. No inherent right shall arise out of this Scheme in favour of any person. By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa, Shrikant M. Polle, Under Secretary (Fin. Exp.) Panaji, 8th November, 2004. ( emphasis supplied ) 19. Clause 2 of the said Scheme explains the background in which the said Scheme came to be formulated and notified. This clause states that the Entertainment Industry in the State of Goa was in a bad shape and required support from the Government by way of incentives and concessions . This clause then refers to the International Film Festival of India which was to be held in Goa shortly i.e. w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is nature nothing much turns on the deposition of the parties. This is because, in the present matters, we are basically concerned with interpretation of the clauses of the said Scheme. This is an exercise which will have to be necessarily undertaken by the Court. No doubt, in case of ambiguity external aids to interpretation can always be looked into. However, any opinion expressed by either the representatives of the Appellants or the representatives of the Respondents is not really determinative in such matters. If upon a proper interpretation of the said Scheme, any party is indeed covered under the said Scheme, then, any assertion to the contrary by any witness, will make no much difference. Similarly, if any party is not covered under the said Scheme, then, again any assertion to the contrary or for that matter even any admission made by witness, will make no real difference on the issue of interpretation of the provisions of the said Scheme. Therefore, we agree with Mr. Faldessai that the learned District Judge was not right in overemphasizing upon some of the statements made by DW1, in his deposition before the Court. 25. In any case, we have perused the testimony of DW1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it may not be correct to say that the moment in cinema hall/theatre is covered under the provisions of Goa Entertainment Tax Act, 1964, then, without anything more such cinema hall/theatre is entitled to benefit under the said Scheme. According to us, the said Scheme has to be read and construed in its entirety. Clauses of the Scheme including in particular the Scheme in clauses 2, 3 and 4 have to be construed harmoniously. If exclusive focus is on clause 4, then, the same will virtually render the provisions in clauses 2 and 3 quite redundant or otiose. 29. Most of the rulings referred to by the learned counsel for the Respondents apply to a situation where the provisions of statute are extremely clear and admit of no ambiguity whatsoever. It is in this situation the Supreme Court has held that the rule of literal construction must be adopted. The intention of the Legislature as expressed in words employed of the Legislature must be respected. 30. Some of the judgments referred to application of doctrine of contemporanea expositio, if, any ambiguity arises in the interpretation of the statutes, particularly old statutes. In the present case, we cannot say that the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds to convey and in what context. 35. The Supreme Court at paragraph 14 further explained that this principle of interpretation was not enunciated only for interpretation of law but it was enunciated for interpreting any piece of literature and it meant that when you have to give meaning to anything in writing then you must understand the real meaning. You can only understand the real meaning by understanding the reference, context, the circumstances in which it was stated and the problems or the situations which were intended to be met by what was said and it is only when you take into consideration all this background, circumstances and the problems which have to be tackled that you could really understand the real meaning of the words. This exactly is the principle which deserves to be considered. 36. Finally, the Supreme Court, referred to passages from book The Discipline of Law written by Lord Denning, in order to interpret the expression landless persons . The Supreme Court noted that the judge believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule that he must look to the language and nothing else, laments that the draftsmen have not provided for this or that, or h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g proportionately higher fees to their consumers. The said Scheme was obviously not formulated to extend any assistance to such brand new multiplexes. 39. The position of ILL, is quite peculiar. The multiplex theatre was being operated by them under a leave and licence agreement dated 17th November, 2006 with the Entertainment Society of Goa, which Mr. Faldessai says was an agency and instrumentality of the State Government. This multiplex theatre was constructed by this agency on Government land. To extend benefit of the said Scheme to ILL, would amount to award of bonanza in favour of ILL and unjustly enrich the ILL at the cost of public exchequer. 40. Although, PKK may have itself constructed the Osia Multiplex, nevertheless, such a multiplex was constructed and opened a few days prior to IFFI. The multiplex was equipped with all facilities and infrastructure necessary for IFFI. According to us, even such a multiplex was not in contemplation of the said Scheme and the learned District Judge erred in extending such benefit under the said Scheme to such multiplex, overemphasizing on clause 4 of the said Scheme and thereby ignoring the other clauses of the said Scheme. 41 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heatre, Hira Talkies, Cine Alankar, Cine Niagara, Cine Paradise, Cine Aisha, Cine El- Monte, Nandi Theatre, Cine Chitra Mandir, Cine Anandi and Cine Radhakrishna who they claimed, were granted benefit under the said Scheme. 46. Now, the Respondents have not made out any case that all these theatres were brand new theatres or multiplexes already having upgraded facilities. In fact, there does not appear to be any serious dispute that all these theatres were old theatres which were in bad shape and which required upgradation on account of IFFI. It is precisely these theatres which were intended to be covered under the said Scheme. Therefore, there is no really case of discrimination as such made out by the Respondents. The principle of equality has to be adopted amongst equals. 47. For all the aforesaid reasons, we allow both these appeals, set aside the impugned judgments and decrees dated 30 th April, 2008 in Civil Suit Nos.33/2007 and 57/2007 and dismiss the said Civil Suits without any order as to costs. 48. The record indicates that the Appellants had deposited the entire decretal amount in this Court and thereafter, on the motion of the the Respondents, the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
