TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under this section at any time" may be divided into two parts; the first part, "during the period of option permitted under this section" referring to any of the four events taking place and the second part "at any time" referring to the prescribed authority. - Civil Appeal No. 4798-4800 of 2008, W.P. Nos. 17325 of 2004, 12643 of 2005, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11420 of 2006, 21778 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2008 - MATHUR A.K. AND AFTAB ALAM JJ. V. Bhaskar Reddy, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Venayagam, (for M/s. Lawyer s Knit Co.), V. Sridhar Reddy and V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates for the respondents. Ms. June Chaudhary and Anoop G. Choudhary, Senior Advocates, (Manoj Saxena, Rajneesh Kumar Singh, Rahul Shukla and T.V. George, Advocates with them) for the appellant. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by AFTAB ALAM J. Heard counsel for the parties. Leave granted. All the three appeals arise from same or similar sets of facts and involve a common question of law. Hence, all the three appeals were taken up together and are being disposed of by this judgment. The dispute relates to demands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranted permission to pay their taxes on the basis of the slab system. Here, it may be noted that in terms of the table that was part of section 5, cinema theatres situate in a selection grade municipality attracted a higher rate of tax than the one situate in a grade III municipality. Notwithstanding the upgradation of the local authority within which the two cinema theatres were situate the appellants went on making weekly payments of the tax amounts as shown in their respective permits, at the rate relating to a grade III municipality. The prescribed authority issued notices dated August 31, 2004 to the two appellants raising demands of the differential tax amounting to Rs. 10,19,875 in case of M/s. Geeta Enterprises and Rs. 11,85,863 in case of M/s. Sreedevi 70 MM for the period of May 18, 2001 to March 31, 2002. The prescribed authority issued another notice dated June 1, 2005 making a demand of Rs. 3,91,377 against M/s. Geeta Enterprises for the period April 4, 2002 to June 27, 2002: against M/s. Sreedevi 70 MM a similar demand of Rs. 95,820 was made on the basis of a revised form IV for the year 2002-03 vide order dated May 30, 2005. M/s. Kumari Talkies, the respondent in S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the A.P. Entertainments Tax Rules that dealt with the details concerning payment of entertainment tax on slab basis. Sub-rule (13) of rule 27 provided as follows: "(13) The Entertainments Tax Officer may revise the amount of tax payable by the proprietor under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act at any time if there is an increase in the gross collection capacity per show in respect of the place of entertainment by virtue of upward revision of the rate or the rates of payment for admission therein or of the seating capacity or accommodation thereof or where the local area, in respect of which permission is granted is upgraded or if it is found for any reason that the amount of tax has been fixed lower than the correct amount." (emphasis added) In view of the provisions in the Act and the Rules it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the prescribed authority undoubtedly had the power to vary the amount of tax fixed under section 5 but the power could be exercised only during the period for which the permission was allowed. It was pointed out that in the three cases the impugned demands were raised, admittedly, long after the period for which the permission was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of section 5 took place during the period of permission granted under section 5(1) and the prescribed authority passed the order varying the fixed amount of tax also within that period. The meaning put by the High Court on section 5(6) gave rise to some problem when one came to rule 27(13). As noted above rule 27(13) is quite unambiguous and it only uses the expression "at any time" and not "during the period of option permitted under this section". The High Court tried to overcome the problem by reading the rule subject to its interpretation of section 5(6). The High Court observed: "The question is: Whether the words 'at any time' occurring in sub-rule (13) confer power on the authority to revise the tax without regard to the period of limitation. Our answer is in the negative. When once the section specifically curtails the power of the authority to vary the tax only during the period of option, it cannot be accepted that a rule can confer on the authority the power to vary the tax without regard to the period of option. The words 'at any time' occurring in sub-rule (13) of rule 27 must, therefore, be interpreted as limiting the power to vary the tax 'during the period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
