High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Pavendra Prakash Bansal v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 363 of 2002  RD-AH 1334 (16 May 2005)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.363 OF 2002
Pavendra Prakash Bansal, Partner Prakash
Palace, Bulandshahar. ....Petitioner
The State of U.P. And others. ....Respondents
Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Petitioner runs a video cinema in a permanent building at village Jokhabad. He had been granted licence for running the cinema. Entertainment tax @ Rs.2,500/- per week is being demanded from the petitioner in view of amendment made in the Schedule II of the Government notification dated 27.04.1989 vide notification dated 18.10.1994 at Rs.2,500/- per week. Submission is that the petitioner is not liable to pay Rs.2,500/- per week as entertainment tax, as its case does not falls under clause (1) of Sl.No.2 of the notification dated 18.10.1994 and instead falls under clause (4) of Sl.No.2 of the aforesaid notification, which prescribes entertain tax @ Rs.1,000/- per week. According to the petitioner it is not situate in local area as it is about 300 mtrs. away from the local area namely Sikanderabad and further the population is less than 50,000 as per 1981 census. The claim of the petitioner has been negatived by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar on the ground that the petitioner's cinema builidng is situate in the local area namely, Gram Sabha Jokhabad and the said local area does not have any other cinema building and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- per week as entertainment tax. Representation made by the petitioner before the State Government has also been rejected.
We have heard Sri H.P.Dubey, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri J.P.Pandey appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the writ petition, its annexure, counter affidavit as also rejoinder affidavit.
In the counter affidavit specific plea has been taken that the petitioner's video cinema is situate in permanent building in the local area of Gram Sabha Jokhabad. In that local area there is no other permanent cinema building and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.2,500/- per week towards entertainment tax. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the position regarding the existence of its video cinema building in the local area of Gram Sabha Jokhabad. It may be mentioned here that under section 2(k) of U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 local area has been defined as follows:
"'local area' means a city within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniya, 1959, or a municipality or a notified area within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916`, or a town area within the meaning of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914, or a cantonment within the meaning of the Cantonments Act, 1924, or a village within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950."
From a bare reading of the definition of "local area" as reproduced above we find that village comes within the meaning of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 which is included in the local area, the village Jokhabad, and is having a gram sabha covered in the aforesaid terms and therefore, it is incorrect to state that the petitioner's video cinema is not situated in local area. Further it is not in dispute that there is no other cinema existing in the said local area. Thus liability for payment of entertainment tax pursuant to the notification dated 18.10.1994 would be Rs.2,500/- per week. According to 1981 census could not have any relevancy whether the case was under clause (1) of Sl.No.2 of the said notification. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his case falls under clause (4) of Sl.No.2. It is situate beyond 3000 mtrs. away from the outer limit of local area as Sikanderabad and the population is less than 50,000, as per 1981 census is also devoid of any substance. If the petitioner's video cinema falls under clause (1) of Sl.No.2of the said notification the applicability of clause (4) will not arise. Further submission is that licence could not have been granted, if there was permanent cinema building already existing is of no. consequence. Even if the grant of licence is illegal, the petitioner still having liability to pay entertainment tax. As it is admitted case there that there is no cinema building in the local area, this question would have arise. Sri Dubey, learned counsel further submits that at the time of grant of licence village Jokhabad was considered as local area and the petitioner cinema building was beyond 3000 mtrs. away from outer limit and therefore, it can not fall under the local area at village Jokhabad. Submission is misconceived. Whatever may have been granted by licencing authority at the time of grant of licence, the liability of payment of entertainment tax exists, in case if is found that the cinema building is situate within the local area and whether there is no other cinema building village Jokhabad is local area within the meaning of section 2 (k) of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 and, therefore, this plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived and devoid of any merit.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.