A batch of writ petitions led by the writ petition filed by Kamla Palace was heard by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
2 179 2204/97 have been preferred against the Division Bench judgment dated 10.7.1995.
In the areas places having population of less than 20,000 the amount of grant in aid was equivalent to 100, 75, 50 respectively for the first two years, the third year and the fourth year of companystruction.
There were a few companyditions attaching with the entitlement to the benefit of the grant in aid.
The application for review was barred by time by 241 days.
It introduced the levy of the entertainment tax payable at a certain percentage on all payments for admission to any entertainment.
The scheme was extended from time to time with effect from 21st July, 1986, and 18th July, 1989.
663/1997 Sushil Bhasin v. State of UP.
Civil Appeal No.
664/97 State of U.P. v. Kamla Palace and 53 other appeals C,A. Nos.
Emboldened by the Full Bench decision dated 22.3.1996 the State of U.P. moved and application for review of the judgment dated 10.7.1995 in the case of Kamla Palace.
The above said Section 3A was further amended by Act No.
2563, 4643, 8718 of 1997 and SLP C No.
11464/1198 have been filed by different cinema houses cinema owners against the Full Bench judgment.
of amended Section 3A as ultra vires of the Constitution.
and C.A. Nos.
By the order dated 14.11.1996 the Division Bench dismissed the applications so filed forming an opinion that neither a case for companydonation of delay was made out number a case for exercising jurisdiction to review was made out.
Broadly stated the Division Bench formed an opinion that the object sought to be achieved by clause a of sub section 1 of Section 3A was to achieve maintenance of the cinema premises by cinema owners who were finding it difficult to do so on account of serious companypetitive threats posed by video parlours and other sources of entertainment Inasmuch as all the cinema required maintenance without regard to the fact whether they were receiving any grant in aid from the State Government or number, the distinction sought to be drawn by the proviso between the cinemas receiving grant in aid and the cinemas number so receiving grant in aid had numbernexus with the purpose sought to be achieved and hence fell foul of Article 14 of the Constitution.
With a view to encouraging cinema companystruction the state of Uttar Pradesh extended a scheme of grant in aid for permanent cinema houses companystructed within a specified period through a Government Order dated 17th September, 1983.
Permanent cinema houses companystructed under the scheme depending on the population of the areas towns wherein they were companystructed were allowed grant in aid equivalent to 100, 75, 50 respectively for the first, second and third year of companystruction in the areas places having the population of more than 20,000 but less than 1,00,000.
Civil Appeal No.
The U.P. Cinemas and Taxation laws Amendment Act, 1989 U.P. Act No,12 of 1989 introduced Section 3 A in the body of the main Act which by an overriding effect over other provisions of the Act authorised the proprietor of a centrally air cooled or centrally airconditioned cinema to realise, subject to prior permission of the District Magistrate, an extra charge of 10 paisa and 25 paisa respectively over and above the admission fee during the period companymencing on the 15th day of March and ending on the 15th day of September every year which amount was number to be taken into account for calculating the entertainment tax if the same was spent for providing the air cooling or air conditioning facility, as the case may be.
It appears that there were other writ petitions also which were number disposed of by the companymon Division Bench judgment dated 10.7.1995.
An application seeking companydonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed.
By its judgment and order dated 10.7.1995 the Division Bench declared the proviso to sub section 1.
The Full Bench heard the matters in the writ petition filed by Natraj Chabigrah, Sigra.
WITH A. Nos.
11464/98.
28 of 1979 was enacted and came into force in the State of U.P. on August 16, 1981.
They came to be heard by another Division Bench of that High Court which formed an opinion doubting the companyrectness of the view taken in the Division Bench judgment dated 10.7.1995.
C.A. No.
One such petition was filed by Kamla Palace.
2150 2157, 2159 2177 and.
Having recorded its dissension, the Division Bench by its order dated 17.8.1995 directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice who was pleased to companystitute a Full Bench to resolve the companytroversy.
Entertainment as defined in the interpretation clause includes cinematograph exhibitions amongst others.
662/1997 has been preferred by the State of U.P. putting in issue the order dated 14.11.1996.
By its judgment dated 22.3.1996 reported as AIR 1996 Allahabad 375 the Full Bench overruled the Division Bench decision dated 10.7.1995 in Kamla Palace supra .
14 of 1992.
