RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of an order dated July 13, 2021 passed by the Joint Secretary, State Tax Department, U.P., Annexure-1 to the writ petition, vide which the claim of the petitioner for providing subsidiary grant after he had set up a cinema hall in rural area was rejected. Further challenge has been made to recovery notice dated August 24, 2021 issued by Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Chandauli, Anneuxre-27 to the writ petition. Further, a direction has been sought to respondent No.1 to provide subsidiary grant to the petitioner with reference to the period mentioned in the scheme dated July 21, 1986.

(2.) Mr. Shambhu Chopra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Government had come out with a scheme dated July 21, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Scheme") pertaining to setting up of new permanent cinema halls. Under the Scheme, such cinema halls, for first year, were to be paid subsidiary grant equal to 100% of the amount of entertainment tax payable with regard to the movie exhibited. Thereafter, for second and third year they were to be paid equal to 74% and 50% of the entertainment tax, respectively. The idea was to promote setting up of more means of entertainment in the rural areas, for which the Scheme was meant. One of the clause of the Scheme provided that benefit will be available to any entrepreneur, who applies for licence to run a cinema hall between January 1, 1984 to March 31, 1990. In the case in hand, the petitioner had applied for licence on February 26, 1990. Mr. Chopra submitted that the case of the petitioner having been recommended by the different authorities keeping in view the fact that the Scheme was an exercise of the State for grant of certain benefits, liberal construction was required but still despite his repeated attempts the benefit was not granted to him. The petitioner had set up the cinema hall relying upon the Scheme.

(3.) Mr. Chopra, learned Senior Advocate further contended that licence was granted to the petitioner under the Uttar Pradesh Cinematograph Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") for running the cinema hall from February 21, 1991 and any delay in the process was in the hands of the respondents, which was beyond the control of the petitioner. He further submitted that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner despite earlier order passed by this Court, as a result of which he was unable to present his case before the authority concerned for proper consideration.