2014 (7) TMI 492

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in contravention with the scheme in Government Order dated August 11, 2000, was dismissed by the court on December 8, 2009, with directions to deposit the entire amount. The court also imposed cost on the petitioner. The petitioner filed a Civil Appeal No. 2988 of 2012. The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of this court, and remanded the matter, for fresh decision on the core issue that was canvassed before it. The Supreme Court observed in para 6 of the judgment that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the writ petition. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the civil appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner deposited the entire amount. In the judgment dated December 8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ugust 11, 2000, did not have corresponding provisions, as in the case of the schemes in the Government Orders dated November 9, 1994 and December 7, 1998, for any grant-in-aid, to such cinema hall owners. This court observed: "There is a conscious departure in the Government Order dated August 11, 2000, from the earlier Government Orders in this regard. The Government took a conscious decision under the said Government Order dated August 11, 2000, to grant total or partial exemption from entertaining tax to such new picture hall instead of giving any amount as grant-in-aid to the owners." This court in its judgment dated December 8, 2009, did not accept the contention of the petitioner that since there was no concealment or misrepresentat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the scheme. The petitioner was given permission by the District Magistrate in his order dated September 10, 2001, while giving 100 per cent. exemption from entertainment tax for a period of five years. The petitioner was required to fill-up form B in a manner that the amount of entertainment tax for the period of exemption was to be shown separately at the end of the month, and the weekly statement regarding total sale of tickets, after deducting tax, was to be shown separately. Sri Rajiv Gupta submits that the order of the District Magistrate dated September 10, 2001, clearly provided for charging entertainment tax, which was to be separately shown in form B but was not to be deposited in the manner prescribed under the Act in the Govern....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vide Government Order dated August 11, 2000, and in which there is no mention of the word "grant-in-aid". The earlier schemes, under the Government Orders dated November 9, 1994 and December 7, 1998, were not for the benefit of the cinema goers; whereas the new scheme was framed for the benefit of the cinema goers, situate in a thinly populated area. In para 2 of the Government Order dated August 11, 2000, it was clearly stated that in order to encourage constructions of new cinema hall, and for the purposes of providing cinema hall in the thinly populated area, in sufficient numbers, a new incentive scheme is proposed for a period of five years, and by this scheme the viewers will be benefiting of the entertainment on cheaper price, and t....