Smt. Aruna Kishore Acharya vs The Director, Department of Information and Publicity, Films Division, Bangalore and Another

Amendment application is filed. The same is allowed. The petitioner is to amend the petition.

The petitioner-Smt. Aruna Kishore Acharya of Belgaum is challenging the Government Order dated 7-6-2003. Annexure-H in addition to a direction to the first respondent to grant a certificate in terms of the notification Annexure-K as a further direction to grant exemption from payment of entertainment tax to the petitioner for three years from the payment of entertainment tax in terms of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act of 1958 (for short, ''the Act''). The petitioner states that the petitioner obtained No Objection Certificate from the licensing authority under the Karnataka Cinema Regulation Act and thereafter completed the construction of a permanent cinema theatre in Belgaum. The petitioner obtained load of Rs. 20 lakhs for the purpose of completion of construction. She was suffering from depression and psychotic illness for several years. She was hospitalised for some time. She obtained the first licence for running the cinema theatre after completion of cinema theatre for the period from 26-1-2002 to 31-12-2002 in terms of Annexure-J. She commenced exhibition of cinematograph shows in the theatre on 26-1-2002. On 4-6-2003, she made an application seeking for exemption with regard to payment of tax under the Act for the first three years. The said application was made in the light of a notification issued Annexure-H. The authority, after correspondence, has chosen to issue an endorsement in terms of Annexure-H, dated 7-6-2003. The petitioner with these facts is before me seeking for various prayers.

Respondents have entered appearance. They justify their action. They also explain the object of exemption notification in the objection. They also say that time schedule is necessary in these cases in the light of exemption from payment of tax.

Sri Nandakishore, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through the pleadings and contends essentially that the notification providing for a time schedule is arbitrary and unsustainable. According to him, the time-limit causes hardship and inconvenience and the said restriction is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On merits, learned Counsel says that Annexure-S is contrary to Annexure-L, the notification issued by the Government. Learned Counsel says that in terms of the exemption notification Annexure-L, the Proprietor claiming exemption is required to be produced before the authority, a certificate obtained from the Director, Department of Information certifying that the cinema theater is newly constructed and come into existence after the date of this notification and specifying the name of the local authority within the limits of which it is situated and the date on which the first cinematograph is shown. Learned Counsel elaborates his arguments by saying that in the given case, the authority has virtually rejected the certificate on the ground of delay and such power is not available to the Nirdeshakaru in terms of the exemption notification. Learned Counsel says that the only jurisdiction available to the Information Department is to issue a certificate and nothing else. Delay question can be considered only by the authority in terms of the notification. He finds fault with Annexure-H.

5.Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supports the endorsement by saying that the said endorsement is nothing but explaining the object of the notification.

After hearing the learned Counsel, I have carefully perused the material on record. The petitioner''s challenge to Annexure-L is to be noticed at the first instance in the light of the amended prayers. It is not disputed before me that the State Government has the necessary power in the matter of exemption under Section 7-A of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act. In exercise of the power under Section 7-A, the State Government has chosen to provide exemption in the matter of tax insofar as newly constructed cinema theatres are concerned. It is a beneficial notification. A procedure is prescribed in a notification by way of a certificate from the Director with regard to new construction and with regard to the date on which the cinematograph is shown in the new theatre. The notification further provides production of the said certificate before the authorities within 30 days from the date on which the first cinematograph was shown with a further extension of 15 days time in terms of the proviso to the notification. This being a beneficial tax exemption notification, the Government in its wisdom has chosen to provide a certificate as a proof of new construction. The Government in its wisdom has also chosen the Information Department as the certifying authority. No fault can be found with insistence of a certificate particularly in the light of exemption being made available in terms of the Act. Counsel also does not dispute this aspect of the matter. Learned Counsel''s objection is the fixation of time schedule in terms of the notification. This argument does not appeal to me. After all when a Government is providing a beneficial exemption it cannot be said that the Government cannot fix a time schedule in the matter of exemption. It is fairly well-settled that exemption notifications do provide a time schedule for proper arrangements and its financial affairs. Any exemption granted by the Government would tell upon its financial position. Therefore, it is in the interest of financial discipline that the Government has chosen to provide a time schedule in maintaining the financial discipline in the matter of exemption. I do not find any arbitrariness in the matter. Even the time provided cannot be said to be unreasonable in me given circumstances. The exemption is basically provided for new theatres and if any person is so interested in getting benefits, he has to act in terms of the time schedule. Looking from any angle, I do not think that there is any arbitrariness in the matter of fixation of time. Fixation of time is reasonable in the light of the exemption under Section 7-A of the Act. The notification is confirmed with time schedule.

Coming to the merits of the matter, I have carefully perused the impugned endorsement. Prima facie look at the endorsement would show that the Information Department has chosen to reject the same on account of delay in the matter. But on a careful reading, what is clear to me is that the authority has only chosen to mention the time schedule provided in terms of the notification. The authority has only reiterated that the petitioner may not be in a position to get exemption in the light of the time schedule in terms of the notification. Therefore, the argument that Annexure-H is rejected on the ground of delay only cannot be accepted. If read carefully Annexure-H would mean that no useful purpose is served by issuing a certificate in the light of time schedule in terms of the notification of the Government. Annexure-H is therefore cannot said to be unsustainable on the facts of this case. Moreover, even if any certificate is issued that would not provide any benefits to the petitioner in the light of my confirmation of time schedule in terms of the notification. Annexure-H is therefore, not disturbed.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, says that the respondents are likely to misinterpret Annexure-H for the purpose of levy of penalty with regard to new building. I am afraid that this is only an apprehension on the part of the petitioner. Material facts, Annexure-H and the pleadings, prima facie would show that the petitioner has built a new theatre and it is for this purpose, he has chosen to appear before the authority seeking for exemption. Even the objection statement prima facie would show that the petitioner has put up a new construction for the purpose of benefits. Except making this observation, I do not think that any further consideration is necessary at this stage. Liberty is always available to the petitioner to show new construction to the authority in case of need, at appropriate proceedings.

In the given circumstances, this petition is rejected with the above observations. No costs.