Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Entertainment Tax)/ Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) v. ORDER:- The present Revision Petition is filed to revise the order

Order

- The present Revision Petition is filed to revise the order, dated

30.01.2004, of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada.

2. The petitioner herein is M/s.Swarna Palace Theatre A/C situated at Governorpet, Vijayawada. The petitioner, being exhibitor of Cinema in the Theatre under the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 (for short, ‘the Act’), is liable to pay the entertainment tax for such Cinematographic Exhibitions along with the show taxes in the usual course under the Act. The petitioner made an application to the Joint Collector on 06.04.2000 to accord permission to enhance the rates

relating to Executive Class and the First Class only for screening the Hindi Movie known as ‘Bichhoo’. The Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate permitted to enhance the rates of admission, as requested, with effect from the date of issue of the order in D.Dis. (C2)513/M/2000, dated 16.04.2000. This fact was also intimated by the said licensing authority the Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada. For the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, it has started the adoption of the higher rates of admission from

07.07.2000 by screening the film known as ‘Bichhoo’. The petitioner, before screening the said picture from 07.07.2000, has intimated by letter, dated 05.07.2000, to the Entertainment Tax Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada Urban stating that he has enhanced the rates of admission by enclosing a copy of the Joint Collector’s permission. Accordingly, the petitioner has paid the entertainment tax on enhanced rates in respect of the two classes. While so, the Entertainment Tax Officer passed the assessment order for the quarter ending 30.06.2000 proposing to pay the Entertainment Tax on the enhanced rates from 20.04.2000 onwards. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner has informed that the enhanced rates were implemented from 07.07.2000 onwards and also enclosed relevant D.C.R. copy, which was authenticated by the Entertainment Tax Officer. In addition to it, the petitioner has also specifically stated therein the valid reasons for non-implementation of the enhanced rates. Subsequent to the said reply, the Commercial Tax Officer, Governorpet issued another notice, dated 08.02.2002, directing the petitioner to pay the Entertainment Tax according to the enhanced rates. In response to the same, the petitioner has informed the Entertainment Tax Officer through another letter, dated 09.02.2002, that he has collected the enhanced admission rates from 07.07.2000, but the Entertainment Tax Officer, without considering the valid reasons, recorded the evidence and passed the assessment order, dated 25.09.2003, calculating the Entertainment Tax as due from the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal to respondent No.1 under Section 9B of the Act contending inter alia that the Entertainment Tax Officer proceeded on premises and passed the impugned order.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the order, dated 30.01.2004, passed by respondent No.1 in not complying the assessment order, dated

25.09.2003, is incorrect and that the said assessment order for the quarter ending 30.06.2000 is barred by limitation.

4. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order is sustainable?”

5. As seen from the impugned order, dated 30.01.2004, it was held that enhanced rates of admission were effected from the date of issuance of the order i.e., from 16.04.2000. Hence, petitioner/Theatre is liable to pay the Entertainment Tax. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though permission was granted to enhance the rates of admission from

16.04.2000 by licensing authority, they have actually enhanced the rates only from 07.07.2000 and hence, they are not liable to pay entertainment tax from 16.04.2000. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Exhibitor requested the licensing authority for enhancement of rates of into the theatre on which the Joint Collector in his reference No.D.Dis.(C2)/513/M/2000,

16.04.2000, permitted management to enhance the rates of admission with effect from the date of order. It is an admitted fact that the exhibitor started collecting the enhanced rates only from 07.07.2000. Initially, a show cause notice was issued to the exhibitor to file the written objections, if any, along with the record proof for the proposed assessment for the quarter ending 30.06.2000 and the same was served on the exhibitor on

19.08.2003. In response to the show cause notice issued, the exhibitor filed written objections on 01.09.2003 stating that they have not enhanced the rates of admission from 16.04.2000 due to some reasons and enhanced the rates of admission from 07.07.2000 and the copies of DCRs, which were signed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Governorpet, Vijayawada, dated 15.04.2000, 27.04.2000 and

11.07.2000, were filed for proof. It is also further asserted that the enhancement of rates of admission were also intimated to the Mandal Revenue Officer and Sub Collector Offices, Vijayawada, dated

05.07.2000, wherein it is clearly asserted that they have enhanced the rates for M/s.Swarna Palace Theatre A/C with effect from 07.07.2000 and requested the authorities to note that the changes of collections per show and permit the change of sales tax with effect from

07.07.2000. They have also enclosed the photo copies of the proceedings of the Joint Collector, dated 16.04.2000. They have also further clarified the reasons for not implementing the enhanced rates, as permitted by the Joint Collector in No.D.Dis.(C2)/513/M/2000, dated

16.04.2000, vide letter, dated 20.01.2002. The endorsement in the DCRs by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada, dated

15.04.2000, 27.04.2000 and 11.07.2000 clearly reads petitioner has enhanced the rates of admission from 07.07.2000 onwards but not from 16.04.2000. Though it was mentioned in the order, dated 16.04.2000, that the petitioner has to pay the new tax on enhanced rates from 16.04.2000, in view of the fact that the petitioner has started collecting the enhanced rates from 07.07.2000, the exhibitor is only liable to pay the entertainment tax from the date of collecting the enhanced rates. Therefore, in any view of the matter, in view of the clear recitals in the letter, dated 05.07.2000, and also endorsements of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada on the DCRs, the demand of commercial tax on the enhanced rates of admission from 16.04.2000, as held by the authorities in the impugned order, is not sustainable, and therefore, the revision petitioner is only liable to pay the entertainment tax on the collection of enhanced rates of admission from 07.07.2000 only.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. _​ ​________________________ JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO 14th October, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.R.P.NO.2294 OF 2004 ​ Date:14.10.2011 AMD