Madrasdated High Court · 2007

United Front Artsrep. by its Proprietor Mr.S.T.RaghurajHansa Picturesrep. by its Partner Mr.Bipin H.ShahZackaria Filmsrep. by its Proprietor Gayaz HashimRoyal Enterprisesrep. by its Proprietor G.HemanthBlock buster Home Entertainment Companyrep. by its Proprietor A.V.MohanSri Raghavendraswamy Filmsrep. by its Proprietor C.Balasubramanian..Petitioners in WP 27291/03Viswas Filmsrep. by its Sole Proprietor Mr.V.Sundar..Petitioner in WP 39342/03, 19379/05,19425/07M/s. Celebrity Films Pvt. Ltd.,rep. by its Director Mr.VNL Sridhar..Petitioner in WP 1271/04Roy Augustine ..Petitioner in WP 1305/04Keyar Enterprisesby its Proprietor Mr.A.Kothandaramaiah ..Petitioner in WP 7436/04M/s. Icon Entertainmentrep. by its R.Syed Salim..Petitioner in WP 14618/04M/s.OM Filmsrep. by its Propreitor S.Elangovan..Petitioner in WP 20480/04M/s.M.PurushothanProprietor of Suguna movies..Petitioner in WP 23135/04R.B.Films rep. by its ProprietorVimal Chand Jain..Petitioner in WP 24882/04 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Gaurav SharmaProp. Goldie Films..Petitioner in WP 36033/04 &WP 36969/04M/s. Sri Raghavendra Movie International, rep. by its Balaji Rao ..Petitioner in WP 37157/04Sri Kailash Filmsrep. by its Proprietor P.Vidyasagar..Petitioner in WP 37621/04Arasan Cine Internationalrep.by its Proprietor Mr.Elango..Petitioner in WP 37709/04K.GopiProp. M/s. Leela FilmsPetitioner in WP.No.3883/05Goldie FilmsC/o. Sathyam CinemaPetitioner in WP.No.4123/05,33473/05A.V.MohanProp Anu Roshini FilmsPetitioner in WP.No.13388 to 13390/05, 24697/05, 30635/05, 36943/05, 39134/05, 39135/051487/06, 4943/06, 8251/06, 8639/06, 8640/06, 13193/06, 13194/06, 17574/06, 17614/06, 36392/06, 36399/06, 41365/06, 41366/06 and 50172/066609/07, 12888/07, 15476/07, 15525/07, 15893/07, 15915/07 and 15916/07K.DhaivanathanProp. M/s. Thaikarpagambal PicturesPetitioner in WP.No.24105/05Madhav ChabriaSaraswathi FilmsPetitioner in WP.No.28345/05AIM Future FilmsProp. Z.H.BijeliPetitioner in WP.No.28441/05K.M.RajendranProp.K.M.R.PicturesPetitioner in WP.No.34213/05 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WIND Screensrep. by Prop. Mr.VijayakumarRKV.StudioPetitioner in WP.No.37947/05M/s. Indo Overseas Filmsrep. by its Partner Mr.Firoz Elias,Petitioner in WP.No.40426/05V.SashikumarProprietor,Trade ChannelPetitioner in WP.No.3328/06V.SundarProp. Sri Lakshmi ViswanathanCombinesPetitioner in WP.No.6800/06Mrs.Farhat FathimaProp. Em.Em.EntertainmentPetitioner in WP.No.6848/06Sri Baba Films,Unit of Sri Baba Theaters (P) Ltd.,rep. by its Managing Director,Mr.S.BalasubramanianPetitioner in WP.No.8751/06M/s. Hema Screens,rep. by its Prop.N.HemadhriPetitioner in WP.No.9349/06M.GunasekarProp. Sree Kalas EnterprisesPetitioner in WP.No.9532/06M/s. Shringar Films (P) Ltd.,Mr.Sundaresan KumarPetitioner in WP.No.11366, 11367/06Larsco Entertainment (P) Ltd,rep. by its DirectorL.SridharPetitioner in WP.No.12023/06Altaf AhamedProp Silver Screen...Petitioner in WP.No.12171/06A.M.A. MallickProp Star Movie...Petitioner in WP.No.24671/06Mr. Dayanand R. MandreProp D. R. M. Combines...Petitioner in WP.No.25293/06 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S. E. ParthepanProp M/s. S. E. P. Films ...Petitioner in WP.No.27992/06R. ShanmughamProp Shan Movie International...Petitioner in WP.No.33955/06S. D. Prasadprop Prasad Talkies...Petitioner in WP.No.47723/06M/s. Dharshan Cine Creatorsrep by its ProprietorMr. C. Gajendran...Petitioner in WP.No.689/07M/s. Madras Talkiesrep by its partner Mr. Maniratnam...Petitioner in WP.No.1277/07KSA Filmsrep by its proprietorMr. K. S. Abubecker...Petitioner in WP.No.1378/07Surface Technicsrep by its Prop R. Manoharan...Petitioner in WP.No.9551/07Ch. Shekar Prop. M/s. Supriya Combines...Petitioner in WP.No.10262/07M/s. Shanmuga films Prop S. Kalidass...Petitioner in WP.No.10807/07M.S. VijayakumarProp KAM Enterprises...Petitioner in WP.No.15332/07R. Sundara KamarajProp Manickavalli Creations...Petitioner in WP.No.18420/07VS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1. State of Tamilnadu rep.by its Secretary, to Govt.Commercial, Taxes Department, Fort st. George, Chennai.9 ... 1st Respondent in All WPS 2. Abiramni Complex, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai.7 3. Maharani Theatre, Thandiarpet,Chennai.4. Kasi Theatre: K.K.Nagar, Chennai.5. Vidya Theatre: Tambaram 6. Rohini Complex, Koyambadu, Chennai. 7. Ganga Complex,Kulathur, Chennai. 8. Aruna Complex, Kancheepuram9. Lena/Vadhunathan Theatres, Chidambaram.10.Navaneetham Theatre, Kallakurichi, SA Dist.11.Velmurugan Theatre, Kadalur, SA Dist.12.Kaveri Theatre, Trichy.13.Shanthi Theatre,Thanjavur.14.Kasi Theatre, Kumbakonam.15.Thinnappa Theatre, Karur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.G.M.Theatre, Dharmpuri.17.Amirtham Theatre, Madurai.18.Mappillai Vinayagar Theatre, Madurai.19.K.G.Complex, Coimbatore.20.Srisakthi Theatre, Tiruppur.21.Krishna Theatre, Erode.22.Nallappa/Durais Theatre, Pollachi. ... Respondents 2 to22 in W.P.No.7436/04Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor the issuance of Writ of Declaration declaring that the provisionof Tamil Nadu Entertainment (Third Amendment) Act, 2003 (Tamil NaduAct 15 of 2003) as unconstitutional, ultravires, illegal, void andunenforceable.For Petitioner in WP.No.23720/03 Mr.S.Ashvin For Petitioner in WP.No.22149/03 ,WP.No.27291/03Mr.B.S.Gnanadesikan For Petitioner in WP.No.1271/04WP.No.40426/05 WP.No.3328/06WP.No.8751/06 Mr.Saikrishnan for M/s.Sai Bharth & IlanFor Petitioner in WP.No.1305/04,36033/04,4123/05,36969/04,13388/05&13390/05,24697/05,30635/05,33473/05,39134and39135/05,1487/06,4945/06,8639/05&8640/06,8251/06,6848/06,11366&11367/06,36743/05,8251/06,6609/06,13193/06and13194/06,17574/06,17614/06,36399/06,41365/06and41366/06,47723/06,50172/06,25293/06,36392/06,1277/07,12888/07,15915,and 15916,15525,15893,15476/07 :Mr.K.F.ManavalanFor Petitioner inWP.No.7436/04K.Harishankar for M/s.Srinath SridevanFor Petitioner in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP.No.14618/04M/s.V.RaviFor Petitioner inWP.No.20480/04WP.No.23135/04 and WP.33955/06 Mr.K.P.SanjeekumarFor Petitioner inWP.No.24882/04 Mr.P.ThyagarajanFor petitioner in WP.No.37157/04WP.3883/05,6800/0627992/06,19379/04,24105/05,10262/0718420/07. :A.ChidambaramFor Petitioner inWP.37621/04 Mr.P.RadhakrishnanFor Petitioner in WP.No.28345/05WP.No.12023/06 M/s.C.JagadishFor Petitioner inWP.No.37709/04 M/s.S.MuthuramanFor Petitioner inWP.34213/05 M/s. AnandFor Petitioner inW.P.37947/05 M/s.D.S.RajasekaranFor Petitioner in WP.No.9349/06 M/s.Eathirraj.P.S.For Petitioner inWP.9532/2006WP.12171/06 V.D.SrinivasanFor Petitioner inWP.No.24671/06WP.No.1378/07 M/s.V.NithiyanandhanFor Petitioner inWP.No.689/07WP.No.19425/07 M/s.Waraon and Sai Rams https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner inWP.No.10807/07 M/s.R.KarunakaranFor Petitioner inWP.9551/07 Mr.P.ShanmugamFor petitioner inWP.No.15332/07 M/s.P.AnbazhaganFor Petitioner inWp.No.28441/05 Mr.K.V.JayakumarFor Respondents inAll WPs Mr.Haja Nazirudeen Spl.G.P.(Taxes) COMMON JUDGMENTP.K. MISRA, JIn this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners havechallenged the validity of the provisions contained in Tamil NaduEntertainment Tax (3rd Amendment) Act (15 of 2003).2. Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax, 1939 (hereinafterreferred to as "the Act") contains provisions regarding levy ofentertainment tax on various modes of entertainment including bycinema. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax, 1939envisages payment of entertainment tax at the rate of 25% of thegross payment for admission for any new film and at the rate of 20%for the old. By virtue of the provisions contained in suchAmendment Act(No.15 of) 2003, hereinafter referred to as the "(3rdAmendment) Act", certain provisions have been inserted in the TamilNadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 making provisions for payment ofentertainment tax at a higher rate on tickets of "dubbed films".Section 3(3-A), inserted by (3rd Amendment) Act, is a definitionclause according to which "dubbed film" means any film forcinematograph exhibition made or produced originally in a languageother than Tamil and subsequently dubbed in Tamil language.Section 4-H, inserted by such (3rd Amendment) Act, is as follows:-"4-H. Tax on dubbed film. - (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, thereshall be levied and paid to the State Government, a tax(hereinafter referred to as the entertainment tax), on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ each payment for admission to any cinematograph exhibitionof dubbed film, calculated at the rate of fifty per centof the gross payment for admission inclusive of the amountof the tax.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), there shall be levied and paid to the StateGovernment (except as otherwise expressly provided in thisAct), on every taxable complimentary ticket, entertainmenttax at the rate specified in sub-section (1), as if fullpayment had been made for admission to the entertainmentaccording to the class of seat or accommodation which theholder of such taxable complimentary ticket is entitled tooccupy or use; and for the purposes of this Act and theTamil Nadu Local Authorities Finance Act, 1961 (Tamil NaduAct No.52 of 1961), the holder of such taxablecomplimentary ticket shall be deemed to have been admittedon payment.(3) Where the proprietor has exercised option to paytax under Section 5-B and exhibits dubbed film on any dayin the week, the tax in respect of payment for admissionto such exhibition shall be calculated under sub-section(1) and the tax in respect of exhibition of other films inthat week shall be calculated under Section 5-Bproportionately.(4) The tax levied under sub-section (1) shall berecovered from the proprietor.(5) The provisions of this Act other than Sections 4,4-B, 4-D, 4-E, 4-F, 4-G, 5, 5-A, 5-B, 5-C, 5-D, 5-E, 5-Fand 5-G and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as maybe, apply in relation to the tax payable under sub-section(1)."3. Net result of such (3rd Amendment) Act is to the effectthat, if any film made or produced originally in a language otherthan Tamil is subsequently dubbed in Tamil language and exhibited inany cinema theatre, obviously within Tamil Nadu, entertainment taxshall be levied and paid to the State Government at the rate of 50%of the gross payment for admission. 4. The main contention raised by the petitioners is to theeffect that there cannot be any discrimination regarding payment ofentertainment between films originally produced in Tamil and filmsoriginally produced in any other language but, subsequently dubbedin Tamil. The liability sought to be fastened by such amendmenti.e., payment of entertainment tax at a higher rate in respect ofdubbed Tamil films, being discriminatory, arbitrary, capricious andwithout any rationale, is violative of the provisions contained inArticles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. This also affects https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the freedom of expression.5. In the counter affidavit originally filed on behalf ofthe State Government, it has been stated that even before thepresent enactment, by virtue of Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax(Second Amendment)Act, 1994 (Act 38 of 1994), hereinafter referredto as "(2nd Amendment) Act, the provisions contained in the TamilNadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 has been amended. As per theprovisions then extant before such amendment by virtue of Tamil NaduAct 38 of 1994, entertainment tax was levied at the rate of 40%. Byvirtue of Act 38 of 1994, a classification was made between dubbedfilms and non-dubbed films and entertainment tax payable in respectof dubbed films was 50% of the gross payment for admission. At thatstage, W.P.No.20229 of 1994 had been filed. However, such writpetition was subsequently withdrawn as the classification betweenthe dubbed films and non-dubbed films was done away by the (2ndAmendment) Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 47 of 1998). However, byvirtue of Tamil Nadu Act 47 of 1998, a classification was maderelating to payment of entertainment tax for exhibition of new filmsand old films at the rate of 30% and 20% respectively. By virtue of(3rd Amendment) Act, provisions have been incorporated providing forpayment of entertainment tax in respect of films dubbed in Tamil andin respect of other films. It has been indicated in the counterthat films originally produced in other language but, subsequentlydubbed in Tamil, stand on a different footing as compared to thefilms originally produced in Tamil and it cannot be said that theprovisions are either arbitrary or discriminatory. It has beenstated that since the production cost of a film originally producedin Tamil is high as compared to the dubbing cost of a film dubbedinto Tamil from any other language, producers of Tamil film arefacing steep competition and, therefore, such amendment has beenmade raising entertainment tax payable in respect of films dubbedinto Tamil. It is further stated that the impugned amendmentshaving been made to save Tamil film industry, it cannot be said thatthere is no rationale behind the classification and there isreasonable nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. 6. During pendency of the writ petitions, a furthercounter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein itis indicated that intention of the (3rd Amendment) Act is toencourage of new films within the State and to enable low budgetTamil films to withstand the competition from films produced inother languages and dubbed in Tamil. It has been further statedthat since large number of such dubbed films were on the higher sideand consequently affecting livelihood of several sections of filmindustry such as professionals, artists, technicians, musicians,etc., within the State, the impugned amendment has been introduced.In the counter, justification is made out on the basis of theprovisions contained in Article 38 of the Constitution. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further stated that films originally produced in Tamil and the filmsproduced in other languages, but subsequently dubbed in Tamil, formdifferent classes and there is no discrimination either on the basisof language alone or even otherwise.7. In course of hearing of the present batch of writpetitions, learned Special Government Pleader, apart fromhighlighting the stand taken in the counter affidavit, relevantportions of which have already been summarized, has submitted thatthere being a strong presumption of validity of a statute, it is forthe petitioners to plead and prove as to how the provisionscontained in the (3rd Amendment) Act are discriminatory or violativeof Article 19. On the other hand, it is submitted that the objectis to encourage and protect the producers, who produce their filmsin Tamil, as they have to face stiff competition in the shape ofdubbed Tamil films.8. In 2007(3) CTC 596 (AASHIRWAD FILMS v. UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS), validity of the provisions of Andhra PradeshEntertainment Tax, 1939 providing for payment of entertainment taxat the rate of 10% for Telugu films and 24% for non-Telugu films,was in question. In the said case, it was observed :-"10. A taxing statute, however, as is well known, isnot beyond the pale of challenge under Article 14 of theConstitution of India.11. In Chhotabhai v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC1006, it was stated :"(37) But it does not follow that every otherArticle of Part III is inapplicable to tax laws.Leaving aside Art.31(2) that the provisions of a taxlaw within legislative competence could be impugnedas offending Art.14 is exemplified by such decisionsof this Court as Suraj Mal Mohta & Co. v. A.V.Visvanatha Sastri, 1955(1) SCR 448: AIR 1954 SC 545,and Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai v. A.V.Visvanatha Sastri, 1955(1) SCR 787 : AIR 1955 SC 13.In Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 1961 SC 552the Kerala Land Tax Act was struck down asunconstitutional as violating the freedom guaranteedby Art.14. It also goes without saying that if theimposition of the tax was discriminatory as contraryto Art.15, the levy would be invalid."12. A taxing statute, however, enjoys a greaterlatitude. An inference in regard to contravention ofArticle 14 would, however, ordinarily be drawn if it seeksto impose on the same class of persons or occupationssimilarly situated or an instance of taxation which leadsto inequality. The taxing event under the Andhra Pradesh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State Entertainment Tax Act is on the entertainment of aperson. Rate of Entertainment tax is determined on thebasis of the amount collected from the visitor of a cinematheatre in terms of the entry fee charged from a viewer bythe owner thereof.13. It is not the case of the respondent that theimposition of different rates of entertainment tax isjustified on any ground other than language.Entertainment of a person may not wholly depend upon thelanguage of the film he sees. A film may be produced inone language and may be dubbed in another. Even within aState, people belonging to different regions may speakdifferent languages, although the State language may beone. ...18. The fact of the matter remains that it isdifficult to laud the objective of the taxation statute inthe in the instant matter which differentiates on thebasis of language alone. This is definitely derisive ofsocial attributes of the polity and Article 14 in itsbasic form i.e. equality before law. If anyclassification seeks to take refuge of exception underreasonable differentia category under Article 14, it muststay clear of the broad constitutional mandate asmentioned hereinbefore. In the instant matter, theclassification solely on the basis of language, fails inits initiative to be called reasonable. Theclassification thus is arbitrary and as such violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution of India....25. The purported classification only on the basis oflanguage without anything more and in particular havingregard to the difference in the rate of tax, in ouropinion is ex-facie arbitrary. The burden was, therefore,on the State to show that the imposition was justified.Different rates of entertainment tax had not been leviedhaving regard to the nature of theatre, the area wherethey were situated or extent of occupancy, etc. It hasnot been explained as to whether cinema theatresexhibiting Telugu films suffer from any disadvantage whichothers had not been. It has not been shown as to why thesame theatre where films in different languages areexhibited would be a class apart, only because atdifferent times exhibit films produced in differentlanguages. Moreover, how Telugu films have been treatedas a separate class have not been stated. Although thelegislature enjoys a greater freedom and latitude inchoosing person upon whom and suggest upon which it canlevy tax, it is trite that taxing legislations are not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ immune from attack based on Article 14. It is also notthe case of the respondent State that in imposingdifferent rate of tax, they intend to achieve an avowedobject envisaged under Part IV of the Constitution ofIndia.26. We, furthermore, may take judicial notice of thefact and keeping in view that this case was tagged withother matters where it had been brought to our notice thatsome States have been making hostile discriminations atthe instance of the distributors of the films produced inlocal languages. State of Andhra Pradesh imposed the saidtax on the said basis which is per se discriminatory innature."(Emphasis added)9. Learned counsel for the State has, however, submittedthat ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is notapplicable inasmuch as in the said case there was a discriminationonly on the basis of language and non-Telugu films were subjected toentertainment tax on a much higher rate as compared to Telugu films.According to the learned Special Govt. Pleader, in the present case,there is no discrimination on the basis of language. It has beensubmitted by him that the films originally produced in Tamil andfilms originally produced in other language - but subsequentlydubbed in Tamil form two different classes and since much lessexpenditure is incurred for dubbing the film in Tamil rather thanproducing a film in Tamil, the Producers of Tamil films cannot beexpected to compete against such dubbed films and, therefore, thereis a need to protect the interest of Tamil film producers. LearnedSpecial Govt. Pleader has further submitted that the objects andreasons for the (2nd Amendment) Act, by which similar provisions hadbeen made, can justify the present provisions. The objects andreasons of the (2nd Amendment) Act, are extracted hereunder:-"Statement of Objects and Reasons - With a view toencourage the production of new films in this State and toenable low budget Tamil films to withstand the competitionfrom films production on other languages and dubbed inTamil, it is proposed to increase the rate ofentertainment tax on films dubbed into Tamil and screenedin this State by ten percentage points in each slab byamending the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939(Tamil Nadu Act X of 1939) suitably." 10. Inspite of the valiant efforts made by the learnedSpecial Government Pleader, we are not impressed by the submissionmade on behalf of the State justifying the imposition ofentertainment tax at a higher rate for the films dubbed in Tamil.First of all it has to be remembered that burden of entertainment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tax is ultimately borne by moviegoer rather than by a Producer,distributor or film exhibitor. The taxing event under the Act is onthe entertainment of the moviegoer. The rate of tax is determinedon the basis of the amount collected from such person. We fail tosee any reason as to why a person who sees a film dubbed into Tamilwould be required to pay more than a person who watches an originalTamil film.11. Even assuming that it is the producer who has to paythe tax, discrimination is writ large on the face of it an we failto see any rational for the purpose of payment of entertainment taxat different rates. A producer, who produces a film in Tamil anddubs such film in other language such as Telugu, English or Hindiand exhibits such film within Tamil Nadu is not required to pay atthe rate of 50%. Similarly, a producer, whether within Tamil Naduor without, produces a film in any other language such as Telugu,English or Hindi and exhibits such films within Tamil Nadu are alsonot required to pay entertainment tax at higher rate. Only aproducer who produces a film in any other language such as Telugu,English and Hindi and subsequently dubs such film in Tamil andexhibits the same within Tamil Nadu will be affected by suchimposition of entertainment tax at a differential rate.12. We hardly see any rationale behind such a provision.According to us, there is no basis for classification, far less anyreasonable basis nor there is any nexus between the classificationand object to be achieved. If the object is to discourage peoplefrom watching dubbed Tamil films mainly because such films areordinarily produced by outside producers, such a provision cannotstand on the scrutiny of provisions relating to equality nor it canbe construed as a reasonable restriction in the interest of generalpublic. In our considered opinion, discrimination is solely basedon language in the sense that a picture, which is originallyproduced in Tamil, is subjected to entertainment tax at a much lowerrate, whereas a picture originally produced in any language otherthan Tamil, but subsequently dubbed in Tamil, is subjected toentertainment tax at a higher rate.13. Even the contention that freedom of expression isbeing unreasonably curtailed appears to be justified. A productionof film by a producer in any other language is a fundamental rightof freedom of expression as well as right to carry on business. Ifhe exercises the freedom of expression by dubbing films in aparticular language, the provisions contemplate restriction in theshape of payment of tax at a higher rate cannot be considered as areasonable restriction in the interest of general public, but on theother hand it may deprive the opportunity of viewing moviesoriginally produced in other languages depicting other social moresand cultures. Similarly, the freedom of a producer to carry on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ business of showing dubbed films is also being adversely affectedwithout any reasonable basis.14. Learned counsel representing the State has placedreliance upon several decisions of the Supreme Court holding thatthere is a greater latitude in classifying different persons for thepurpose of taxation at different rates. It is not necessary torefer the decisions on such aspect as the principle is well knownand, moreover, many of such decisions were noticed and analysed in2007(3) CTC 596 (cited supra). 15. Learned counsel for the State has also submitted thatsimilar provisions had been made in 1994 and the objects and reasonsof such provisions constitute a valid basis. The fact that similarprovisions have been made in 1994 is immaterial, particularly whensubsequently such provisions had been withdrawn. The object ofgiving protection to producers of original films in Tamil may appearto be justified only when a tunnel vision is adopted. We do notfind any reasonable nexus between the object to be achieved and thebasis of classification.16. We are also not impressed by the submission made bythe Special Govt. Pleader that for dubbing a picture no artisticskill is required nor it has the effect of encouraging the localartists. Even for dubbing the film certain amount of skill in theshape of preparing or translating the lyrics, writing new lyrics andwriting and recording such dialogues and lyrics is required to bedone. At any rate, keeping in view the overriding sentiment thatfrom "Kashmir and Kanyakumari - India is One", such a policy canscarcely be encouraged.17. As we had already noticed, the burden of taxation isultimately passed on to the moviegoers and the producers ordistributors or exhibitors are merely collecting agents. From thepoint of view of a moviegoer, it makes any difference to him,whether a film good, bad or indifferent, is made originally in Tamilor such a film made in any other language is subsequently dubbed inTamil. It is very difficult to fathom as to why a moviegoer, who isvery interested in watching a film should be subjected to pay higherrate of entertainment tax merely because the film which he wants toview was originally produced in some other language and wassubsequently dubbed in Tamil. From the view point of such a person,obviously the provisions of the (3rd Amendment) Act arediscriminatory. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to upholdthe validity of the provisions contained in the Amending Act 15 of2003. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed, however,there would be no order as to costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.dpkTo1. The Secretary to Government,State of Tamilnadu,Commercial Taxes Department,Fort St. George,Chennai 600 009.40 ccs to Mr.K.F. Manavalan, Advocate, Sr. 47719 to 47722 , 47725,47726, 47727, 477282 ccs to Mr.B.S. Ganadesikan, Advocate, Sr. 473251 cc to Mr.R. Karunagaran, Advocate, Sr. 473862 ccs to M/s. Waraon and Sairams, Advocate, Sr. 47136, 471372 ccs to Special Government Pleader (Taxes), Sr. 478031 cc to Ethiraj.P.S. Advocate, sr. 476931 cc to Mr. Sai Bharath Advocate, Sr. 469891 cc to Mr.K. Sridhar, Advocate, Sr. 47337 W.P.Nos.23720/2003 & BatchAKR , MS (CO)kk 24/10