RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of a demand made by the respondent No. 3 (District Excise Officer, Khargone) asking the petitioner to pay entertainment tax at the enhanced monthly rate of Rs. 3,937/ - in place of Rs. 1,687/ - on the strength of an amendment made on 1 -4 -1991 in the M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

(2.) PETITIONER is having his V.C.R. Parlour in a Village -Gogawa in Tehsil Khargone in District West Nimad. The petitioner in his VCR Parlour (Premsukh Video House) was at all relevant time exhibiting films to public. Petitioner had taken licence for running and exhibiting films under the provisions of M.P. Cinema Regulation Act (Annexure P -l).This licence was being renewed from time to time as is clear from the endorsement made in the licence (Annexure P -l).

(3.) THE Excise Officer on the basis of aforesaid amendment in the table referred supra, asked the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,937/ - mentioned in Column No. 3 of item No. 1 in Category A. According to Excise Office, since the case of petitioner falls in category specified in (A) and hence, he is liable to pay Rs. 3,937/ -. It is this demand which is impugned by the petitioner in this petition.