KALPANA THEATRE Vs. THE ENTERTAINMENT TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised in these four T.R.Cs. filed by the same assessee, is common. Therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The question for consideration is, whether the petitioner is liable to pay Entertainment Tax for the whole assessment year at the rate payable by him at the time when the reduction in seating capacity was ordered. The petitioner is a partnership concern represented by its managing partner. It is running a theatre. On March 24, 1984 it applied for reduction in seating capacity. While so it opted to pay tax under Section 5 of the Entertainment Tax Act (for short the Act). Consequent upon the option exercised by the petitioner tax was fixed at Rs. 8,732/ -. This was without reference to his request for reduction in seating capacity. On June 20, 1984, the Joint Collector, the Competent Authority under the Act ordered reduction in seating capacity, consequent upon that order tax under Sec. 5 of the Act was fixed at Rs. 6,067/ -. After the reduction in seating capacity was permitted, the petitioner continued to pay the tax at the reduced rate noted above, that is, at the rate which was fixed consequent upon the reduction in the seating capacity.

(2.) SUB Rule (10) of Rule 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Rules was amended and clause (d) was substituted therein by orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 197 Revenue(S) Department dated 23.2.1987. The amendment was brought into force retrospectively with effect from 1.4.1984. As a result of the amendment the petitioner was liable to pay tax at the rate which was in force prior to reduction in seating capacity. That liability was for the whole assessment year. Consequent upon that amendment, the Entertainment Tax Officer demanded tax for four quarters ending on June 30, 1984, September 30, 1984, December 31, 1984 and March 31, 1985.

(3.) SHRI Krishnamohana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that consequent upon the amendment of Rule 27(d), the petitioner is made to pay the tax at a higher rate as the rule is given retrospective effect. This burden is unjust and arbitrary. Heard the learned Government Pleader. Inasmuch as the validity of Rule 27(10)(d) was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 25th March, 1992 in W.P. No. 18167/87 we cannot go into the validity or otherwise of the Rule. Proceeding on the footing that the Rule has been given retrospective effect and that it is deemed to have been in force with effect from 1.4.84, and therefore in force on June 20, 1984, the date on which reduction in seating capacity was permitted by the Joint Collector. If that be the position then the petitioner was liable to pay tax only at the slab rate fixed before permitting reduction i.e. at the rate of Rs. 8,732/ -. The petitioner paid the tax on the basis of the reduction in seating capacity at the rate of Rs. 6,067/ -. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the difference of tax was payable by it. In that view of the matter, we find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal warranting our interference. The T.R.Cs. are, therefore dismissed. Having regard to the above circumstances, we grant three months' time for payment of the tax in demand. No costs.