NAULAKHA THEATRE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned writ petition along with other writ petitions mentioned in the foot note of this order, wherein the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of demand of entertainment tax. The writ petitioners are the firms engaged in the business of cinema and have been granted licence under the provisions of Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are required to deposit entertainment tax under the provisions of Punjab Entertainment Tax (Cinematograph Shows) Rules, 1954. The case of the petitioners is that cinema industry in the State was on the verge of closure, as cinema owners are suffering loss due to high rate of entertainment tax. The cinema owners had been taking up the issue with the Government to consider reduction in the entertainment tax. The petitioners pleaded that in response to the various representations, the Government took a decision to give 33% concession in the entertainment tax, if the tax is deposited in lump sum. Such decision was taken by the Cabinet and was incorporated in the annual budget for the year 2003-04 presented before the Legislative Assembly on 24.03.2003. The relevant extract from the budget proposal reads as under:

(2.) The petitioners have allegedly deposited the lump sum entertainment tax in pursuance of such budget proposal. It was later somewhere in September, 2004, the demand was raised against the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have deposited entertainment tax availing rebate of 33%, whereas no notification has been issued by the Punjab Government. In the afore-mentioned writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that in view of the representation of the State, the petitioner has altered its position. It is averred to the following effect:

(3.) Relying upon the budget proposal for the year 2003-04, the petitioners, thus, contend that the State is bound by the principle of promissory estoppel, therefore, the petitioners are liable to pay only lump sum tax by availing concession of 33%.