No different rates of entertainment tax on language basis:SC
New Delhi, June 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court has held that different rates of entertainment tax on films cannot be imposed on the basis of difference in language alone.
The petitioner, Ashirwad Films, had approached the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act 1939 under which the rate of entertainment tax on Telugu films was fixed at 10 per cent while on non-Telugu films it was 24 per cent. The apex court also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the state of Andhra Pradesh.
Representations to withdraw the tax were rejected by Andhra Pradesh Government.
According to the petitioner, discrimination on the basis of the language violates right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The state government, however opposed the petition on the grounds that the state government enjoyed great latitude in the field of imposition of entertainment tax.
A bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Markandey Katju while holding the imposition of different taxes on the basis of the language of the movie as unconstitutional observed ''We furthermore may take judicial notice of the fact and keeping in view that this case was tagged with other matter where it had been brought to our notice that some states have been making hostile discriminations at the instance of the distributor of the films produced in local languages. State of Anadhra Pradesh imposed the said tax on the said basis which is per se discriminatory in nature. We are therefore of the opinion that the impugned levy cannot be sustained being discriminatory in nature.It is struck down accordingly.
Petitioner would thus be bound to pay tax at the rate at which entertainment tax has been levied in respect of Telugu films. The writ petition is allowed with costs.
Counsel
fees
assessed
at
Rs
50,000.''
The
court
also
noted
''The
purported
classification
only
on
the
basis
of
language
without
anything
more
and
in
particular
having
regard
to
the
difference
in
the
rate
of
tax
in
our
opinion
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
levied
having
regard
to
the
nature
of
the
theatre,
the
area
where
they
were
situtated
or
extent
of
occupancy
etc.
It
has
not
been
explained
as
to
whether
cinema
theatre
exhibiting
Telugu
film
suffer
from
any
disadvantage
which
others
had
not
been.
It
has
not
been
shown
as
to
why
the
same
theatre
where
films
in
different
languages
are
exhibited
would
be
a
class
apart
only
because
at
different
times
exhibit
films
produced
in
different
languages.
Moreover
how
Telugu
films
have
been
treated
as
a
separate
class
have
not
been
stated.
Although
the
legislature
enjoyed
a
greater
freedom
and
latitude
in
choosing
person
upon
whom
and
suggest
upon
which
it
can
levy
tax,
it
is
trite
that
taxing
legislations
are
not
immune
from
attack
based
on
Article
14.
It
is
also
not
the
case
of
the
respondent
state
that
in
imposing
different
rates
of
tax
they
intend
to
achieve
and
avowed
object
envisaged
under
Part
4
of
the
Constitution
of
India.
''
UNI