TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate (T.V.S.N. Chari, Nikhil Nayyar, Ms. Promila and Ms. Bharat Reddy, Advocates, with him) for the appellants. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.- This is an appeal on behalf of the Entertainment Tax Officer-I, Khammam, and the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 3rd April, 1986, whereby a Division Bench of the High Court struck down section 1 of Act No. 16 of 1985 [the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985] to the extent of its applicability retrospectively between 7th September, 1984 to 24th October, 1984. To appreciate the point it is necessary to deal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21, 1984 with effect from 23rd March, 1984, the measure of tax payable under section 4 was altered and the proprietor became liable to pay tax at the gross collection capacity per show at certain percentage. The percentage of taxation again differed depending upon the location and type of the theatre. A Bill which became later the Amendment Act No. 24 of 1984 was passed by the Legislative Assembly but not by the Legislative Council. In this situation Ordinance No. 14 of 1984 was promulgated which was issued on 27th April, 1984 bringing into force sections 3, 6 and 13 with effect from 23rd March, 1984. Amendment Act No. 24 of 1984 received the assent of the Governor on 20th May, 1984. Section 2 of this Amendment Act states sections 3, 6 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1985 which became effective, like Ordinance No. 26 of 1984, with effect from 7th September, 1984. A batch of writ petitions were filed questioning the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act as amended by Act No. 24 of 1984, i.e., the amendment introduced for levying the tax on gross collection capacity in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court upheld this Act. On appeal this Court affirmed the said decision which is reported as Venkateshwara Theatre v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1995] 96 STC 130 supra; [1993] 3 SCC 677. It appears the provisions of section 1, sub-section (2), giving retrospective effect as contained in the Amendment Act No. 24 of 1984 was challenged in the batch of writ petitions again. The High Court of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia v. Madan Gopal Kabra [1954] 25 ITR 58 (SC); [1954] SCR 541 at pages 554-555). Again in Krishnamurthi and Co. v. State of Madras [1973] 31 STC 190; [1973] 2 SCR 54 this Court held that the legislative power conferred on the appropriate Legislatures to enact laws in respect of topics covered by the several entries in the three Lists can be exercised both prospectively and retrospectively. Again in the case of Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar [1963] 50 ITR 171 (SC); [1964] 1 SCR 897 a Constitution Bench of this Court observed thus: The power of taxing the people and their property is an essential attribute of the Government and Government may legitimately exercise the said power by reference to the objects to which it is applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to levy entertainments tax on payment for admission to entertainments in the place of levy of entertainments tax on the gross collection capacity on every show in respect of entertainments held in the theatres. Accordingly, the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No. 26 of 1984) was promulgated by the Governor on the 4th September, 1984. The Government subsequently on a review of the decisions taken by the then Government have decided to restore the system of collection of tax on the basis of gross collection capacity on every show and to revert back to the position as obtained prior to the promulgation of Ordinance No. 26 of 1984 and to repeal the aforesaid Ordinance with retrospective effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lling price. During 1968-69 the State Government collected the sales tax computing the sales tax at 61/2 per cent of the actual sale price of arrack without including excise duty or cess. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the privilege of vending liquor in the year 1968-69 was sold without any variation in the prices of arrack fixed by the Government during previous year at 55 paise per litre. Though the appellants obtained order of stay from April, 1966, various other contractors paid sales tax on the sale price of arrack together with excise duty and cess. The Government withdrew the appeal from this Court. In view of the finality of the judgment of the Mysore High Court the Government became liable to refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
