MENKA PICTURE PALACE Vs. D M DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is a picture hall of which petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor and licensee to exhibit cinema films. It has been granted licence to exhibit cinema under the U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 and Cinematograph Act, 1952 at Salempur, district Deoria. The petitioners are liable to pay entertainment tax for the admission to the entertainment provided to the public in the picture hall. The petitioner has opted for payment of compound entertainment tax under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1979) for the year 1996 -97 and accordingly it compiled with the entire formalities as prescribed under Rule 24A of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Rules, 1981 (hereinafter called as the Rule of 1981). Respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 25th May, 1996 (filed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition) has rejected the said application for compound payment of entertainment tax on the ground that there has been a change in the ticket rate and also for the number of shows which would result in reduction of the entertainment tax in comparison to that of the last year. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order the present writ petition has been filed on the allegations that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary and illegal.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied for payment of compound entertainment tax for the immediately preceding year which was also rejected. Against that order the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 690 of 1995, which has been dismissed by this Court on 8th May, 1996.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents a counter -affidavit has been filed on the allegations that there would be loss of revenue, in case the petitioners' application for compound payment of entertainment tax, is allowed. The petitioner currently has fixed the ticket rate of balcony at Rs. 6.00 and of D.C. at Rs. 4.00. Earlier to it the rate of balcony was Rs. 8.00 and that of D.C. was at Rs. 6.00. He was exhibiting four shows earlier in the picture hall and currently only three shows are being exhibited therein. The petitioners had also filed Writ Petition No. 3293 of 1994 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court for the purpose of reduction in the rate of tickets and reduction of shows. All these attempts are being made by the petitioner with a view to reduce the revenue collection by way of entertainment tax of the State Government. Further allegations are that the respondent, i.e., the District Magistrate is not bound to accept the compounding application of the petitioners as it is not in the interest of the Revenue. In paragraph 4 of the counter -affidavit it has been stated that the application under Rule 24A (4) of the Rules, 1981 can be accepted only when there is upward revision of the entertainment tax. Since in the petitioner's case there is likelihood of reduction of revenue receipt by way of Entertainment Act, the impugned order was correctly passed.