ENTERAINMENT TAX OFFICER Vs. GEETA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) All the three appeals arise from same or similar sets of facts and involve a common question of law. Hence, all the three appeals were taken up together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The dispute relates to demands raised by the prescribed authority in terms of Section 5(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 as the provision was in existence at the material time (Section 5 now stands deleted by Act 32 of 2005 with effect from 4.6.2005). The Prescribed Authority raised the impugned demands in view of the fact that the local authorities within which the respondents' cinema theatres were situate were upgraded during the period the three respondents had the permission to pay their taxes following the slab system as provided under section 5 of the Act. The demands were, of course, raised long after the period for which permission was granted was over. The controversy in regard to the legal validity of the demands turns on an interpretation of the expression "during the period of option permitted under this Section at any time" occurring in sub-section (6) of Section 5 and the expression "at any time" used in sub-rule (13) of Rule 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Rules, 1939. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has interpreted the aforesaid expressions in a certain way and if that interpretation is correct the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the demands were invalid and unenforceable is perfectly unexceptionable. But the question is whether the High Court's interpretation of those expressions is correct and sound.