AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner, an exhibitor of cinema, is before this Court mainly questioning the endorsement issued by the Entertainment Tax Officer, Dharwad, dated 17-11-1994. The said endorsement has been issued by the officer concerned mainly relying upon the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 10-10-1994 and the letter of Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 11-11-1994.
Petitioner contends before this Court that Section 4-A of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 (''the Act'' for short) has been amended by substituting the aforesaid provisions by Karnataka Amendment Act 25 of 1994.
The substituted provision reads as under:-
"4-A. Tax on cinematograph shows in certain places.-(1) In lieu of entertainment tax payable under Section 3-B, in the case of cinematograph shows held in a cinema theatre situated within the limits of a local authority or town on village specified in Column (2) of the table below, the proprietor may, at his option and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed, pay the amount of tax every week as specified in Column (3) thereof-"
(table not extracted as unnecessary)
Pursuant to this provision the exhibitor made an application before the concerned Entertainment Tax Officer to determine the gross collection capacity of the cinema theatre and also to fix the entertainment tax payable by the petitioner. This application of the petitioner has been disposed of by the Entertainment Tax Officer by the impugned endorsement dated 17-11-1994. In that he directed the petitioner to pay the entertainment tax on the basis of prevailing admission rates as on 27-9-1994 with effect from 2-10-1994 as per the circular instructions and the letter of the Joint Commissioner. That apart, the Entertainment Tax Officer in his endorsement would indicate that the permits already issued to the petitioner to exhibit the movies would be withheld as the amended rules are not forthcoming in his office. It is this endorsement which has brought the petitioner before this Court, being aggrieved by the same.
Sri S.V. Subramanyam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Entertainment Tax Officer should have considered the application filed by the petitioner for grant of benefit under Section 4-A of the Act as amended by Act 25 of 1994 without reference to the Commissioner''s Circular dated 10-10-1994 and the letter of the Joint Commissioner dated 11-11-1994. The learned Counsel also submits that the Entertainment Tax Officer has no jurisdiction to withhold the permit on the ground that the amended Entertainment Tax Rules have not been received in his office.
This Court in M/s. Sree Jagadish Colour Company v Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 1996(41) Kar. L.J. 626, has observed that the Commissioner cannot issue instructions or directions to interfere with the function of quasi judicial authorities under the Act. By issuing the present Circular dated 10-10-1994, the Commissioner has made the Entertainment Tax Officer to literally reject the petitioner''s application for grant of certain benefits under Section 4-A of the Act. In my view, the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner should not interfere with the functions of the quasi-judicial authority such as the Entertainment Tax Officer under the Act. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement dated 17-11-1994 issued by the Entertainment Tax Officer is liable to be quashed.
For the reason stated above this writ petition is allowed. The endorsement issued by the Entertainment Tax Officer dated 17-11-1994 is quashed and a further direction is issued to the Entertainment Tax Officer to consider independently the application filed by the petitioner dated 1-10-1994 in accordance with law and in accordance with the substituted provision of Section 4-A of the Act as amended by Act 25 of 1994 and in accordance with the rules framed thereunder.
With these observations the petition is disposed off. Ordered accordingly.