PHOOLCHAND SURANA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the relief that the respondents be directed to issue necessary permission for starting the cinema.

(2.) Brief facts, as stated by the petitioner in support of the petition, are that the petitioner is sole owner of Ralan Talkies, Bemetara, District Durg. It was constructed in the year 1984. The said talkies was run by the petitioner from 1984 to 12-2-1990 thereafter, according to the petitioner, he stopped exhibiting the films in the said cinema threatre and as alleged by him let out the hall and furniture on 12-5-1990 to Subhash Chandra Surana to run a video parlour for a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- (Four Thousand). The said Subhash Chandra Surana was granted a licence to run the Video parlour and in the said licence (Annexure- P/2) it was clearly mentioned that the present petitioner is the owner of the building. The petitioner had nothing to do with the business of Subhash Chandra Surana. The said Suhhash Chandra exhibited the films in the said Video parlour up to August, 1995 and thereafter stopped the business and handed over the building and furniture to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter, carried out extensive repairs so that he could re-start the cinema theatre. On 25-6-1996, the petitioner applied to the Collector for grant of licence. Collector, Durg required the petitioner to complete certain formalities which were accordingly completed. The Collector thereafter required the petitioner to approach Chief Nagar Panchayat Officer for grant of licence. The said Chief Nagar Panchayat Officer issued the lincence in favour of the petitioner on 23-11-1996. The petitioner vide his application dated 23-11-1996 enquired from the Excise Officer, Durg regarding deposit of security. The District Excise Officer withheld the permission on the ground that the petitioner was required to deposit the arrears of entertainment tax due on video business of Subhash Chandra Surana. The petitioner submitted to the District Excise Officer that he was not connected with the business and if there were any dues the same were required to be recovered from Subhash Chandra Surana, he submitted that the permission could not be withheld on this ground. The District Excise Officer then issued demand notice against Suhhash Chandra Surana for the said amount. The petitioner submits that as he was not engaged in the business of film exhibition under a video parlour licence, no recovery could be made from him nor the permission could be withheld on the ground of dues against Subhash Chandra Surana.

(3.) The respondent No. 2, District Excise Officer, in his return contends that the intention of the petitioner is to evade the payment of video entertainment tax. The petitioner had given his consent in favour of the son Subhash Chandra Surana that he wanted to close down the cinema business. It is further submitted that the licence case of petitioner's talkies was closed and a licence was granted in favour of the son. The respondents contend that the entertainment duty which is recoverable from the petitioner and/or his son is leviable under the provisions of M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936.The respondents contend that the proprietor and/or incharge of the management is liable to pay the duty under Section 3 of the Act. The respondent submit that the petitioner was infact falling within the definition of 'proprietor' and as such the recovery could be made from him and in view of lapses on the part of the petitioner, the permission could be withheld. The respondents submit that the petitioner is not entitled to a no dues certificate and he cannot be permitted to exhibit the films unless the dues are cleared. The respondents also submit that the documents filed by them would show that Subhash Chadra, son of the petitioner, was acting as a proprietor or at least as an incharge of the management for the petitioner, therefore, for the sons's business, the father is liable. They further submit that the petition is misconceived and is liable to be rejected with costs.