DHANNALAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions moved by two Cinema Exhibiters of Abu Road and chittorgarh challenge their liability to pay additional entertainment tax under section 6-A of the Rajasthan Entertainment Tax Act and can be conveniently disposed of by a single judgment. Writ Petition No. 411 of 1961:

(2.) DHANNALAL as the proprietor of Ganesh Railway Talkies, Abu Road, states that he runs a cinema under a temporary license in the Railway Colony of Abu Road. The state of Rajasthan, respondent No. 1, issued a Notification, published in the rajasthan Rajapatra dated 1-4-1960, levying an additional entertainment tax at the rate of Re. 1/- per show, for every 100 seats or part thereof with a maximum of Rs. 3/- per show or performance. The Inspector, Excise and Taxation demanded from the petitioner the Additional Entertainment-tax in accordance with this notification. The petitioner protested to the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and taxation that this additional tax was not legally leviable because the cinema was situate in the Railway Colony which was not a part of Abu Road to which the notification applied. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the petitioner's contention by his order dated 12-6-1961 (Ex. 2) and demanded frbm the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1641/ -. The petitioner preferred a revision application to the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation but the same was dismissed as non-maintainable. The petitioner has now moved this petition under Article 226. It is contended that the additional entertainment tax is not leviable on the petitioner because the cinema of the petitioner is situate not within the Abu Road municipal limits but in the Railway Colony which is not hit by the notification issued for the collection of the additional entertainment tax; that the collection of this tax is in the nature of a profession tax the limits of which cannot exceed Rs. 35o/-per annum which limit the additional entertainment tax clearly transgresses; that exempting cities and towns other than those mentioned in the notification without any regard to the comparative population thereof and imposing different rates of tax on different cinema houses in the same town are discriminatory and offend article 14 of the Constitution; that the imposition of the tax is in nature of an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's freedom to carry on his business; that it illegally deprives the petitioner of his money and that the notification was not laid before the legislative assembly in the next session and is, therefore, unenforceable. The petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents restraining them from recovering or levying the additional entertainment tax. The respondents have submitted an answer to the petition admitting the levy of the additional entertainment tax but they contend that Abu Road mentioned in the notification includes the Railway colony. They maintain that the tax is levied on persons who visit the cinema that the difference in rate of tax between one place and another is regulated by the considerations of income yielded by the cinema of a particular place. They have refuted the contention that the tax is discriminatory or is hit by Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. Writ Petition No. 19 of 1962:

(3.) THE petitioner in this case is the proprietor of Vishnu Talkies Chittorgarh. He contends that the notification of the State of Rajasthan dated 1-4-1960 pursuant to the Amending Act of the Rajasthan Entertainment Tax Act by which the additional entertainment tax has been imposed on him is illegal on the ground that the Amending Act 8 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) is invalid as it did not receive the assent of the President as the parent Act did. The imposition of additional tax is discriminatory as it does not include 30 other cinema houses. That the nature of the tax is not entertainment tax as if is levied not against the spectators but against the exhibitors; that the tax partakes the nature of income-tax or business tax --and such tax cannot be levied; that the State has no authority to exempt certain cinema houses altogether except-ing in accordance with the powers conferred on the State Government by Section 7 (2) of the Act; that the petitioner is being deprived of his money without authority and his fundamental rights are being violated; and the petitioner, therefore, prays that the state be directed by means of a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus not to collect the additional entertainment tax.