STAR TALKIES Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a permanent cinema theatre having been licensed under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955 situated at Nagapattinam, Thanjavur District. THE petitioner pays entertainment tax under Sec.5(B) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, herein after referred to as the Act, taking advantage of the compounding system. THE Government by exercising its power under Sec.8(2) of the Act passed G.O.Ms.No.483, dated 3.5.1983 granting exemption from tax with regard to two films viz., "Circus Ulagam" and "Baktha Duruva Markandeya". Clauses 2 and 3, of the G.O. are relevant and they read as follows: (2) Special tickets indicating the reduced price of admission after giving the benefit of tax exemption to the viewer, should be printed and used after getting them sealed by the entertainment tax officer concerned; (3) THE price of admission should be reduced to be notional rate of admission after deducting the notional tax element from the gross price of admission as given in "C form license.

(2.) THE petitioner reduced the rates of admission for balcony from Rs.2.30 to Rs.1.60, for 1st class from Rs.1.80 to Rs.1.25, for II class from Rs.1.00 to 0.70 p. and for III class from 0.50 p. to 0.35 p Accordingly, the petitioner made collections while exhibiting the two films.

(3.) CHALLENGING the aforesaid two orders of 12.4.1984 the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that once the petitioner is permitted to pay the tax on the compounding basis under Sec.5-B, the tax payable under Secs.4, 4-A, 4-B, etc. is not applicable and for the purpose of calculating the reduction in the rate of admission, the tax which is payable under those sections cannot be taken into account. It is submitted that Sec.5-B excludes the applicability of Secs.4,4-A, 4-B and 4-C of the act. It is contended that the respondents have erroneously directed the deduction of the entire tax, which will be payable if Secs.4,4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) are applicable to the petitioner and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has made excess collection by not properly reducing the rate of admission.