RAM RAJ NAHTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order dt. 31.12.87 (Anx.4) withdrawing the exemption from payment of entertainment tax in respect of film 'Dharam Bhai' produced by the petitioner may be declared illegal and same may be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner produced a film titled 'Dharam Bhai' in the Rajasthani Language. The petitioner made an application to the respondent State praying that exemption from the entertainment tax for a period of six months may be granted to him in respect of the said film in accordance with the Rajasthan State Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to the Act of 1957). This application of the petitioner was allowed by the order dt. 14.9.1987 and copy thereof has been placed on record as Ex. 1. In pursuance of the exemption granted by the respondent State, petitioner was required to submit two prints of the said film to Audio Visual Education Officer, Ajmer for the purpose of its exhibition without any charges in the rural areas. These two prints were given to the government without cost. On account of the exemption granted by the respondent State, petitioner took out 11 prints instead of the usual three prints at an additional cost of Rs. 3.5 lacs. He has also got the publicity material prepared so as to inform the public at large that the entertainment tax is not payable on the exhibition tickets of the said film. In this process petitioner got 50,000 posters printed at the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The petitioner entered into a number of agreements for exhibition of the film with the various exhibitors. But suddenly the exemption granted by the order dt. 14.9.1987 was withdrawn by the order dated 31.12.1987. A copy thereof has been placed on record as Ex.4. It is submitted that on account of withdrawl of this exemption, the petitioner's collection were reduced and he had to suffer a loss also. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on the ground that once the exemption has been granted by the government, they cannot withdraw on the basis of the principle of promissory estoppel. It is submitted that on account of this exemption, petitioner had to suffer, therefore, the State Government should be estopped from withdrawing this exemption.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.