TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Government of Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Ruling: Discriminatory Rates Struck Down</h1> <h3>Aashirwad Films Versus Union of India and others</h3> The court found the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, levying different rates of entertainment tax on Telugu and non-Telugu films, ... Constitutionality of a notification issued by the Government of the Andhra Pradesh levying different rates of entertainment tax Whether cinema theatres exhibiting Telugu films suffer from any disadvantage which others had not been? Held that:- Writ petition allowed. Some States have been making hostile discriminations at the instance of the distributors of the films produced in local languages. The State of Andhra Pradesh imposed the said tax on the said basis which is per se discriminatory in nature. Therefore the impugned levy cannot be sustained being discriminatory in nature. It is struck down accordingly. The petitioner would, thus, be bound to pay tax at the rate at which entertainment tax has been levied in respect of Telugu films. Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh levying different rates of entertainment tax.2. Alleged contravention of Article 351 of the Constitution of India.3. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India due to discriminatory tax rates.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of the Notification:The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of a notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh that levied different rates of entertainment tax on Telugu and non-Telugu films. The Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939, enacted under Entry No. 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, allowed the state to impose taxes on luxuries, including entertainment. The rate for Telugu films was fixed at 10%, while non-Telugu films were taxed at 24%. The petitioner argued that this differentiation was discriminatory and violated constitutional provisions.2. Alleged Contravention of Article 351:The petitioner contended that the impugned levy contravened Article 351 of the Constitution of India. However, the court held that Article 351, which pertains to the development of the Hindi language, had no application in this case. The court stated, 'Assuming that there was a violation thereof, the same would not come within the purview of Part III of the Constitution of India and thus its application under article 32 in relation thereto is not maintainable.'3. Alleged Violation of Article 14:The petitioner argued that the different tax rates were discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The court acknowledged that while the state enjoys greater latitude in imposing different rates of taxes on different classes of people, a taxing statute is not beyond the pale of challenge under Article 14. The court cited precedents to establish that a taxation statute must pass the test of Article 14 and that the classification must bear a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.The court noted that 'the classification solely on the basis of language, fails in its initiative to be called reasonable. The classification thus is arbitrary and as such violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India.' The court emphasized that the imposition of different rates of entertainment tax was not justified on any ground other than language, which was deemed arbitrary and discriminatory.The court further stated that the burden was on the state to show that the imposition was justified. It noted that different rates of entertainment tax had not been levied based on the nature of the theatre, the area where they were situated, or the extent of occupancy. The court concluded that the classification based solely on language was not reasonable and thus violated Article 14.Conclusion:The court struck down the impugned levy as discriminatory in nature and held that the petitioner would be bound to pay tax at the rate applicable to Telugu films. The writ petition was allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 50,000.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
