INDUSIND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION LTD Vs. MAMLATDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. M. D. Mehta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. The present petitions are filed by the petitioners under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the prayer, inter alia, that writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated October 18, 1999 passed by the Mamlatdar, Entertainment Tax, Ahmedabad (annexure A) and also the order dated June 19, 2006 passed by the Collector, Entertainment Tax, Ahmedabad (annexure B) as well as the order dated August 25, 2009 passed by the Commissioner, Entertainment Tax (annexure C) in revision for the grounds narrated in detail in the memo of the petition.

(2.) Petitioner No. 2 is the director of petitioner No. 1-company, which is engaged in providing signal from their head ends located at Ahmedabad to various cable operators, who in turn receive the same and transmit by way of cable to their subscribers. It is contended that the petitioners had not provided any entertainment and the cable operators who receive the signal provide the entertainment to the individual subscribers. It is therefore contended that the petitioners have no privity of contract with individual subscribers and the charges are collected by cable operators and no liability could be fastened upon the petitioners. It is contended that the liability of tax is not that of the petitioners as the petitioners are not actually imparting any entertainment. It is further contended that by virtue of franchise agreement, the liability of such tax is on the shoulders of cable operators who are, by and large, paying the tax.

(3.) A reference is made to the notice issued by the Mamlatdar, Entertainment Tax, and it is contended that a meeting was arranged on May 2, 1996, by the Mamlatdar in-charge of Ahmedabad City and informed the petitioners about the tax pertaining to entertainment. It is also contended that it was specifically pointed out to the Mamlatdar that the tax liability is not on the shoulders of petitioner No. 1-company as petitioner No. 1-company is not actually imparting any entertainment, nor the liability is on the shoulders of petitioner No. 1-company by virtue of franchise agreement. However, the petitioners are made liable to pay the tax as per the show-cause notice at annexure G and communication at annexure H dated June 26, 1996 has been issued stating as to why the amount should not be recovered by way of arrears of land revenue under section 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Therefore, again, a meeting was held and ultimately the order was passed which has been challenged as stated above by the petitioners before higher authority and also a revision application before the Commissioner, Entertainment Tax, challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid communications dated June 14, 1996, June 26, 1996 and July 5, 1996.