VIJAYA MAHAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition Ordinance No. IX of 1991 which was replaced by Act No. XX11I of 1991 by which sub- section (6) of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Act 1939 was amended with retrospective effect from I1-1-1991 adding one more ground for the purpose of varying the amount of tax payable by the proprietor of a cinema theatre is challenged. The petitioner is the proprietrix of an air conditioned theatre called Vijaya Mahal within the municipal limits of Chittoor, a special grade municipality. Under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to for short 'the Act') the State Government has power to levy tax on the gross collection capacity on every show in respect of entertainment held in the theatres. The table appended to Section 4 specifies the local authority, the nature of theatre and the rate of tax. Section 5 provided for an easy mode of levy by giving option to the owner of a theatre to make payment in accordance with what it lays down. Section 5 reads:

(2.) By Ordinance I 1991, which came into force with effect from 11-1-1991, the rate of tax, under S. 5 was uniformly .enhanced; in respect of air conditioned theatres in special grade municipalities the enhancement was to 26% as against the earlier rate of 21%. This change was brought about by amending the table under S. 5(1) of the Act without amending sub-section (6). Ordinance No. I of 1991 was repealed by Ordinance No. IX of 1991 promulgated by the Governor of the State on 14th" June '1991. Clause :(ii) of S. 4 of Ordinance No." IX of 1991 which was brought into force with effect from 11-1-1991, the date on which the earlier Ordinance No. 1 of 1991 came into force, amending sub-section (6) of S. 5 of the Act reads as follows :

(3.) From a comparison of the unattended, sub-section (6) with the amended sub-section (6) what is clearly noticeable is that the amended provision has classified in clauses (b), (c) and (d) what was incorporated in the unamended sub-section (6) and the new addition is clause (a). Presumably this legislative device is sought to be resorted to for the reason that sub-section (6) of S. 5 was left untouched by Ordinance No. I of 1991 and so it was felt that the provision relating to .the power to vary the amount of tax also must be suitably amended if the rate of tax was to be increased.