LexENTERTAINMENT TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD versus M/S. GEETA ENTERPRISES
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 864
~
A
ENTERTAINMENT TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD
v.
'
MIS. GEETA ENTERPRISES
r
(Civil Appeal No. 4798 of 2008 etc.)
AUGUST 4, 2008
r
8
[A.K. MATHUR AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
_...,
Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 - s. 5 (6)
L
- Entertainment tax- Cinema Theatres opted to pay the tax ul
c s 5 - Variation of tax in view of upgradation of the local area
where they were situated - Demand raised for differential
amount after expiry of period of option - Validity of - Held:
The demands were not invalid only because they were raised
after expiry of the period of option - The authority can vary the
D tax at any time if there is change in the circumstances caliing
for the variation during the period of option - Andhra Pradesh
Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939 - r 27 (13).
~
Respondents-Cinema theatres had opted to pay the
entertainment tax on slab basis u/s 5 of Andhra Pradesh
E
Ente~inments Tax Act, 1939. During the period of option,
I
the local area where they were situated was upgraded. In
view of the upgradation, tax amount also varied. Pre-
scribed authority raised demand for the differential tax
amount. Respondents challenged the demand contend-
F ing that the demand was bad as it was raised after the
period of option was over. High Court allowed the writ
y
petitions and held that power to vary the tax must be re-
stricted to the period of option. Hence the present appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1 The impugned demands did not suffer
from any invalidity simply because those were raised af-
ter the period of option was over. [Para 12] [872 D-E]
-;- ..
1.2 According to the High Court any revision of rates
H
864
ENTERTAINMENT TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD v.
865
MIS. GEETA ENTERPRISES
'I
under Section 5(6) of Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax A
Act, 1939 would be valid only in case any of the four even-
tualities as stipulated in sub-section (6) of Section 5 took
place during the period of permission granted under sec-
tion 5(1) and the prescribed authority passed the order
varying the fixed amount of tax also within that period. The
B
'>'
meaning put by the High Court on section 5(6) gives rise
•
to some problem when one comes to Rule 27 (13) of Andhra
Pradesh Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939. Rule 27 (13) is
quite unambiguous and it only uses the expression "at any
•
time" and not "during the period of option permitted under c
~
this section". [Paras 9 and 1 O] [871 A-B, 871 B-C]
I
1.3 The meaning put by the High Court on Section
5(6) of the Act is not acceptable. The expression "during
the period of option permitted under this section at any
time" does not refer to the power of the prescrJbed au-
D
thority at all but it refers to the happening of the events
enumerated in the sub section that would form the basis
to vary the fixed amount of tax. Alternatively, the long ex-
pression "during the period of option permitted under this
section at any time" may be divided into two parts; the E
{
first part, "during the period of option permitted under this
I
section" referring to any of the four events taking place
and the second part "at any time" referring to the pre-
scribed authority". Thus read, the meaning of Section 5(6)
becomes plain and clear and rule 27(13) .~gets back its F
...
normal meaning, there being no need to give it any forced
restricted meaning. [Para 11] [871 F G H 872 B-C]
CJVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4798
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.8.2005 of G
I
the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
-,.. -t
in W.P. No. 17325 of 2004 & 12643 of 2005
I
WITH
H
/\
B
c
866
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
C.A. Nos. 4799 & 4800 of 2008
June Chaudhary and Anoop G Choudhary, Manoj Saxena,
Rajneesh Kumar Singh, Rahul Shukla and T.V. George for the
Appellant.
V. Bhaskar Reddy, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina
Madhavan, Venayagam (for Mis. Lawyer's Knit & Co.}, V. Sridhar
Reddy and V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondenf.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. All the three appeals arise from same or similar sets of
facts and involve a cemmon questioi:i of law. Hence, all the three
0
appeals were taken up together and are being disposed of by
this judgment. The dispute relates to demands raised by the
prescribed authority in terms of Section 5(6) of the Andhra
PradeshExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.