MAMAJI TALKIES Vs. COLLECTOR JALGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner impugns notice dated 29-6-1989 issued by Collector, Jalgaon, for recovery of excess amount of entertainment duty.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were several other petitions, forming three groups. In one of the groups, the point for consideration was the population of the town concerned. In other group, the dispute relating to the recovery of the amount for the intervening period between the date of licence and delivery of permit, was involved. It is made clear that the points raised in this group of petitions are not decided earlier.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts are that petitioner runs a cinema talkies at bhusawal by the name and style "shree Mamaji Talkies" and holds a valid license and permit therefor under the provisions of Bombay cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953. As per the policy of the Government, exemption from payment of entertainment duty is given for some of the films exhibited for educational, scientific purposes, films for children etc. It is the case of the Petitioner that he exhibited film "aaj ke Sholay", which was cleared by Censor Board as a children film, during the period 16-1-1986 to 23-l-1986. The ticket rates for the different class were fixed within the parameters of the concessions given by the Government, vide Govt. Resolution dated 14th March, 1983 issued by Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs, Sports and Tourism department. By this resolution, the chargeable limit was increased from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 3/ -. Although the petitioner adhered to this limit, collector, Jalgaon, issued a notice dated 29-6-1989, requiring the petitioner to pay excess amount earned by him during the period 161-1986 to 23-1-1986 aggregating Rs. 7,078. 21 ps. on the basis of objection raised by the office of the Accountant General (Audit) -I, maharashtra. Being aggrieved by this notice for recovery of the amount of Rs. 7,078. 21 petitioner has filed the present petition. According to the petitioner, the respondents cannot resort to subsequent clarification for showing that excess profit is earned, therefore, the impugned notice has to be quashed and set aside.