TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ma, KamlendraMishra and Rajeev Dubey, Advs. For the Respondents : Ravinder Kumar, Javed Mahmud Rao, Shahid Ali Rao,Pawan Sharma, Nitish Massey and B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Advs. JUDGMENT Markandey Katju, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dated 7.12.2005 in Writ Petition No. 3281 (MB) of 2004. Heard lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The respondents claim subsidy under Clause 23.3 of the Film Policy. The said Clause 23.3 states: 23.3 Subsidy : A subsidy of 25% of the cost of production, subject to a maximum limit of ₹ 10 lac, will be provided to films made in the State in any one of the above mentioned languages. This subsidy will be paid to film processing labs for the expenditure actually incurred in the making of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the prescribed format, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He also submitted copy of the script with a Bank draft of ₹ 2,500/- as processing charges. It is alleged that the script of the film was approved by the expert committee, whose recommendations were approved by Film Bandhu vide approval letter dated 27.5.2003, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d counsel for the appellant submitted that under Clause 23.3 of the film policy the subsidy payable was only 25% of the cost involved in the processing of the film in the laboratory (subject to a maximum of ₹ 10 lacs). He submitted that the purpose of the subsidy was that film labs were situated outside U.P. and hence a subsidy was granted in relation to the film processing in the labs which....