TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1833
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication) attached to Rule 5 has been challenged but when the arguments began in right earnest learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the said Rule under challenge is not struck down as being unconstitutional or ultra vires otherwise, a constructive meaning to the words "swami" or 'malik' used in the Rule and corresponding legislations will achieve the same object and purpose, for which the petitioner has been compelled to approach the writ court. 3. Arguments have been made both on behalf of the petitioner, the State as well as an intervener, who in relation to a particular movie-hall or a multiplex claims himself to be the owner. However, there is unanimity that persons who have set-up a new movie hall or a multiplex after 1st July, 1991 are required to be given subsidy by way of refund of entertainment tax, which are deposited by them. 4. The Rule of 1982 does not define the word "swami". However, the word "swami" has been explained as part of Rule 5 and is used at various places in the Rule. Since the benefit of subsidy has to be extended to the "swami" or 'malik' either of the multiplex or a cinema hall, therefore the word has to be understoo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the cinema hall to the Collector in such manner as may be prescribed and if the Collector is not satisfied with the facilities provided, he may recover the duty in respect of the amount allowed for facilities also from the proprietor of the cinema. Explanation- The expression "facilities" shall mean such improvement as may be notified by the Government from time to time. " 8. Section 9 (a) of the Act of 1936 has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner because it too reflects as to the duty and obligations to maintain accounts, registers or documents in relation to the entertainment duty etc. in case an inspection of accounts and documents and search of premises is carried out by the Excise Commissioner. Argument has been made that the word 'proprietor', therefore, should be read in the context of Sections 2(f), 3, 9(a) of 1936 Act to draw-out the essence as to why a broader kind of definition has been given to the word 'proprietor' in the Act of 1936. 9. To crystallise the argument made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, the essence of the said legislation of 1936, which has a bearing to the subsidy scheme notified in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Regulation Act, 1952 and the Chhattisgarh Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1972. The 1952 Act read with 1972 Rules was enacted broadly for the purpose of regulation of cinemas including their licensing etc. The 1972 Rules defines a 'licensee' in Rule 2(g), which reads as under: "2(g)- "Licensee" or "holder of licence" includes the Manager or Managers nominated under Rule 108." 13. By way of definition of a licensee it cannot be concluded that a licensee has to be the proprietor alone. Such a definition of a licensee means that there can be two different individuals or juristic persons at helms of affair, meaning thereby that there is a proprietor but independent of the proprietor there can be a person in-charge who is holder of licence may be as a Manager or Managers, who can be nominated under Rule 108 of 1972 Rules. Rule 108 also read as follows : "108. Licensee or his nominee to be present. Either the holder of the cinema licence or some person or some one of several persons whom the licensee has nominated as manager or managers and whose name or names have been entered as such in the licence, shall be present at the cinema to which the licence applies during the whole t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the PVR i.e. the petitioner, has made significant investments across the State. The object behind the Rule of 1982 relating to the subsidy and a guarantee attached thereto surely was one of the motivating factors for them to get attracted and drawn to the State in making significant investments, which surely has huge financial outlay, including the risk involved thereto. 18. Now if by some ambiguity or mischief being played by the decision makers if the object and purpose of 1982 Rules is not being extended either to the 'proprietor' of a cinema hall or a multiplex or to the PVR, a "swami" since they are the licensees and have been meeting all the obligations under the license and the enactments noticed earlier. The reason for them to approach the Court is to define the word "swami" and interpret it in such a manner that clarity is provided to the Rule so that the subsidy scheme in terms of 1982 Rules does not remain a hollow promise or remains illusive. 19. As has been the submission on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that in most of the cases the actual investment and in running of these movie halls or multiplexes, it is the licensee i.e. the PVR who are at....