High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus questioning the G.O.Ms.No.4181 Revenue (CT.lV) dated 1.8.2005 in fixing the difference of taxes for films produced outside the Andhra Pradesh and in other languages other than Telugu language is contrary to law null void and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to fix a common rate of tax for all films in all languages as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Civil Appeal No.709 of 2OO7 and consequently direct the respondents to collect the entertainment tax for the film shivaji on par with the high budget film produced in Andhra pradesh. t ! I I A. NO:1 OF2OO7 MP. NO:1 2007 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to collect the entertainment tax for the film shivaji on par with the high budget film produced in Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T.CHAITANYA KIRAN, AGP FOR STATE TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 14840 oF m07 Between: M/s. lndra Films, 101, Happy Trade Centre, S.D. Road, Secunderabad, Rep by its Proprietor. Sri Dilip K. Tondon. AND 1 Govt. of A.F'. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Commercial Taxes), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus questioning the G.O.Ms.No. 1481 Revenue (C.T.|V) Dt. 1-8-2005 in fixing the difference of taxes for films produced outside the Andhra Pradesh and in other languages other than Telugu Language is contrary to law null void and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to fix a common rate of tax for all films in all languages as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 709 of 2OO7 and consequently direct the respondents to collect the entertainment tax for the films 'APNE", "AWARAPAN" and "NAKAAB" on par with the high budget film produced in Andhra Pradesh. Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition' the High Court may be pleased todirecttherespondentstocollecttheentertainmenttaxforthefilms"APNE" ,AWARAPAN,, and ,NAKAAB,, on par with the high budget film produced in Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K'DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRt T'CHAITANYA KIRAN' .--!_ AGP FOR STATE TA)( The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER { i I , I t I 3 I I rroN'BLE SRTIUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT ON NOs.13373 AND COMMON ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri lustice Suddala Clulapathi Rao) The Writ Petition No.13373 of 2007 is filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.1,l81 Revenue (C.T.lV), dated 01.08.2005, in fixing a lower of rate of entertainment tax for high and low budget Telugu films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh, to that of films procluced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh for the same areas and same facilities as discriminatory and contrary to law laid rlown by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aashirwad Films v. Union of India (UOI) and others (Civil Appeal No.709 ot 2004, dated 18.05.2007). Consequently to direct thc' rcspondents to collect the entertainment tax for the fitm 'Shivaii' proclucc'tl outside the State of Andhra pradesh, on par n,ith the films produced in the composite State of Andhra Pradcsh.

2. Ihc \\'rit Petitiorr No. 14840 of 2002 is filed challenging G.O.Nls.No.t481 Revenue (C.T.tV), dated 01.0g.2005 in fixing a lor+,c'r of rate of tax for high and low budget Telugu films 4 produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh to that of films produced outside the State of Andtra Pradesh for the same areas and same facilities as discriminatory and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aashirwad Films v. Union of India (UOD and others (Civil Appeal No.709 of 2004, dated 18.05.2007). Consequently to direct the respondents to collect the entertainment tax for the films "APNE", "AWARAPAN" and "NAKAAB" produced outside the' State of Andhra Pradesh on par with high budget Telugu films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

3. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions being common, we proceed to decide and dispose of these writ petitions by this common order.

4. tt contended by the counsel for the petitioners that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aashirwad Films (supra) at paragraph-2S held that "the State cannot impose two sets of taxes Lrasing on the languages", which is discriminatorl' and unconstitutional. 5

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the instant case also, the respondent-State has imposed two sets of taxes for the Telugu high and low budget films produced in the state of Andhra pradesh oide G.o.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (c.T.lv), dated 01.08.2005 and other rate of tax for the films produced outside the state of Andhra Pradesh oide Act32 of 2005, dated 04.06.2005. As such the slme is discrimin;ltory in nature, unconstitutional and also violative of the judgnrent of the Hon'ble Apex court in Ashirvad Films (supra).

6. Per contrn, it is submittecl by the rearned counsel for respondents that uide G.o.Ms.No.1481 dated 01.0g.2005, the State has gi'rzen concession rate of tax for the high and low budget Telugu filrns, which are produced in the state of Andhra Pradesh onlv, so as to encourage the growth of the film production in the state of Andhra pradesh. The said concessional ratc irr tdxes uncle,r the c.o.Ms.No.14gl Revenue (cr.IV) dated 0t.08.2005 cannot be saicl as discriminatory and unconstitutional. I{e further contendecl that the judgment of 6 ,a\ the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated in Aashirwad Films (supra), has no application to the facts of this case.

7. We have given earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel Sri K.Durga Prasad for petitioners and Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax and perused the material on record.

8. As seen from the G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (CT.[V) dated 01.08.2005, the rate of Rate entertainment tax was fixed at 75n/o for high and low Telugu films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh, whereas, as per Act No.32/2005 4.6.2005 the tax was fixed at20o/o for the films produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. Further, the said variation is based on place of productiorr, but not on language, as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. [rr the light of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the said concession is given to the films produced in Andhra Pradesh, to give encouragement for production of films irr the State of Andhra Pradesh, the said t 7 submission of the State Counsel aPPears to be germane and valid.

10. Further in the light of the submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said concession/variation of taxes, is discriminatory and unconstitutional, we have considererl the fotlowing decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and extract the relevant portion for better urlderstanding as the said variation of taxes is unjustified and unconstitutional besides being discriminatorY.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dipak Sibal v. Puniab Universityt has held that, "9. lt is now r,r,cll settled that Article 14 forbids class legi:slation, but cltrcs rtot forbid reasonable classil'ication. Wh.ether a classificatiorr is a permissible' classification uncler Article 14 or not, tw'o conditions must be satisfied, namely, (1) that the classifictttion must be founde,l on an intelligible c{iffercrrtia rr'hich clistinguishes PLrrsons or thirrgs that arc, groupcr{ tog,cther from otht'rs left out of the group, ancl (2) that the differc'nti.l must have a rational nel:us to the obiect sclught to be achicved by the statute in question. 1 (tgeg) 2 scc 14s 8

20. [n considering the reasonableness of classification from the point of view of Article 14 of the Constihrtioru the court has also to consider the o$ective for such classification. If the obiective be illogical, unfair and unjust, nece,ssarily the classification will have to be held as unrcasonable. ...."

12. In National Council for Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan2, the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined thus, "16. Article '1.4 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification provided that it is found on an intelligible diffcrentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and the differentia has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation in questiorr. In re the Special Courts Bill,1978l$9791 SCC 3801, Chandrachucl, C.J., speaking for majority of the Court aclverted to large number of iudicial precedents involving interpretation of Article 14 culled out several propositions inclutling the following: "(2) I hc State. in the cxcrcise of its govemmental poh'er, has of necessity to make laws operating c{ifferently on different groups or classes of persons within its territory to attain particular ends in grving effect to its policies, and it must possesses 6or that purpose large povners of distinguishing and classifying persons or things to bc'subiected to such laws." 2 zott (2) scALE 59 9

13. Thrus, in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court (supra) fixing of concessional rate of taxes for the films produced in the state of Andhra Pradesh to that of the films produced outside the state of Andhra Pradesh, can be termed as reasonable classification and permissive legislation. Hence, the said ground of the counsel for the writ petitioners that the G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (Cl'.lV), dated 01.08.2005 is unreasorrable and unconstitutional and discriminatory, is hereby r:ejected and there is no pith and substance in the contenti<>ns of the learned counsel for petitioners. 'I,,4. As regards to the second contention that the said G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (CT.tV) dated 01.08.2005 is conffary to the judgment of Hon'ble Ape.x Court in Aashirwad Films (supra), we have perused the said judgment and in the said case the State has imposed two different sets of taxes for the films basing on languages in that view the [{on'ble Apex Court, tras held that the saic{ variation of taxes to be I I discriminatory and unconstitutional. l-he said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the irrstant cases as there is no 10 variation of taxes based on language and as such the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also rejected as untenable.

15. Thus, in the light of above findings, the contentions of the writ petitioners that G.O.Ms.No.148L Revenue (CT.IV), dated 01.08.2005 is contrary to Aashirwad Films (supra) and is unconstitutional, baseless and untenable. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 1,6. In view of the above stated findings and conclusions, the writ petitioners have miserably failed to substantiate their case for the reliefs claimed in the above writ petitions.

17. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. \ SD'. L. VIJAYA UEXUI //TRUE COPY// OFFICER OneFairCopytotheHon'bleSRlJUST|CEP.SAMKosHY '1For Uis LordshiPs Kind Perusal) oneFairCopytotheHon,blesnr.lusrlcESUDDALACHALAPATH|RAo (fot His Lordships Kind Perusal) -- -' To, l.OneCCtoSRlK'DURGAPRASAD'AdvocatelOPUCl 2. 11 LRCoPies 3.TheUnderSecretary,Unionoflndia,MinistryofLaw,JusticeandCompany \or r(i] Affairs. New Delhi I t \

4. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

5. Two CCs to Spl. GP FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana t at Hyderabad [OUTI

6. Turc CD Copies (v BSR LS HIGH COURT ) ) "7 f ( COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.13373 and 14840 of Z00T t j 1[ ]irlu ?l]ffi * .4 * DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS K €