SITARAM VILAS TALKIES UTKAL Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to these seven writ petitions are common, short and simple arising out of the Orissa Entertainment Tax Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and the Orissa Entertainment Tax Rules, 1947 (briefly, the 'Rules').

(2.) THE petitioners are the proprietors of the cinema halls in question and they were permitted to pay the tax under the provisions of Section 6(1) (c) of the Act on the basis of returns. The petitioners made applications under Rule 21 of the Rules in Form III to the appropriate authority for allowing them to pay the tax u/s. 6(1) (c) of the Act and they were granted permission under Form IV to avail of the provisions of Section 6(1) (c) for payment of the tax on the basis of returns: It is the case of the petitioners that by an order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, opposite party No. 1, the permission granted to them to pay the entertainment tax on the basis of returns has been revoked as per Clause (1) of the permit as 'sufficient stamps are now available in the treasury'. They were also requested to make indents immediately for the Orissa entertainment tax stamps from the local treasury. In all these writ applications, the petitioners have challenged the revocation of the permission granted of them.

(3.) MR . Ranjit Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the provisions of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub -section (1) of Section 6 are disjunctive and mutually exclusive as is clear from the use of the word 'or' after each sub -clause which underscores the position that they are mutually distinct and not co -de pendant and/or contingent. It is also submitted that none of the sub -clauses has any primacy over the other, nor are the sub -clauses subordinate to each other. It is further submitted that on a reading of Clause (c) of Sub -section (1) of Section 6, it is found that the conditions pre -requisite for this clause are :