Allowed

M/S Sri Veerabhadra Picture Palace v. the Deputy Commissioner and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2024WP/1379/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that since the petitioner's lease commenced in October 2000, they cannot be liable for entertainment tax arrears accruing prior to that period. The Court directed the tax authorities to collect the respective dues from the landlord/respondent No. 3.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner absolved of liability for entertainment tax arrears accruing prior to lease commencement; authority directed to recover dues from third respondent/landlord.

M/S Sri Veerabhadra Picture… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 1379 OF 2nnR

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s Sri Veerabhadra Picture Palace Parvathipuram, rep by its Manager and lease holder, Made Nageswara Rao S/o.Made Gurumurthy, 34 years. R/o.Parvathipuram, Vizianagasram District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Vizianagaram.

¶14

The Asst.Commissioner of Commericial Taxes, Cum Entertainment Tax Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District.

¶15

Smt.Palla Bharati, W/o.V.S.S. Narasimha Murthy H.No.2274-61 Near Seetharama Swami Temple, Visakhapatnam.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶18

be pleased to issue a writ, or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in demanding arrears of entertainment tax vide letter No.257/2003-04 dt.27.11.2005 to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal, consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to collect the arrears of tax from the third respondent.

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2006fWVMP. NO: 859 OF 2QQ61

¶20

Between:

¶21

Smt.Palla Bharati, W/o.V.S.S. Narasimha Murthy H.No.2274-61 Near Seetharama Swami Temple, Visakhapatnam.

¶22

Petitioner/Respondent No.3

¶23

AND

¶24

M/s Sri Veerabhadra Picture Palace, Parvathipuram, rep by its Manager and lease holder. Made Nageswara Rao S/o.Made Gurumurthy, 34 years, R/o.Parvathipuram, Vizianagasram District.

¶25

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶26

The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Vizianagaram.

¶27

The Asst.Commissioner of Commericial Taxes, Cum Entertainment Tax Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District.

¶28

... Respondents/Respondents

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted on 13-3-2006 made in WP No. 1379/2006.

¶30

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 1640 OF 2006)

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to insist the petitioner for arrears of entertainment tax pertaining to 1990-1991, 1999-2000 and 20002001 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KURITI BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: RAMA RAO GHANTA

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

APHC010277472006

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶37

[3488]

¶38

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶39

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶40

PRESENT

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶42

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶43

WRIT PETITION NO: 1379/2006

¶44

Between:

¶45

M/s Sri Veerabhadra Picture Palace

¶46

...PETITIONER

¶47

AND

¶48

The Deputy Commissioner And 2 Others and Others

¶49

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶51

1.KURITI BHASKARA RAO

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶53

GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶54

2. RAMA RAOGHANTA

¶55

The Court made the following Order: (per Hon'bleSri^{justiceR.RaghunanaanRao)}

¶56

The petitioner had obtained lease of a theater named' Sri Veerabhadra Picture Palace, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District on daily rent of Rs.2,200/- under a deed of lease executed^{on04.10.2000.The} petitioner, while he was running the said theater,^{wasservedwithademand} notice dated 23.11.2005 issued by the respondents 1 & 2, demanding arrears of the Entertainment Tax for the years 1991-1992, 1999-2000^&2000-2001.

¶57

¶58

¶59

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said demand notice has approached this Court with the contention that the petitioner was not running the theatre during the relevant period and that he cannot be liable for Entertainment Tax payable by his landlord.

¶60

This Court had initially directed, by an order dated 13.03.2006, that the monthly rent being deposited by the petitioner, in the account of POP.No.729 of 2003 on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram on account of certain disputes between the parties, should be kept intact, pending further orders of this Court. Subsequently, by an order dated 24.05.2006, this Court had modified the said order and permitted the 3 rd respondent-landlord to withdraw the entire amount as the 3"^ respondent■ landlord required the money for his medical expenses.

¶61

The docket proceeding of 13.03.2006 also states that it was the stand of the Commercial Tax Department that the demand notice arose out of the arrears of Entertainment Tax in the following manner:-

¶62

SL.No.	Years	Amount
1.	1999-2000	Rs.94,522/-
2.	2000-2001	Rs.18,924/-
3.	1991-1992	Rs.1,59,732/-

¶63

The material placed before this Court including the^ordersofthe

¶64

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos.10758 & 19620 of 2004 dated 17.01.2005 and the order dated 24.06.2005 in C.R.P.No.86 of 2005 would show that the lease taken by the petitioner started only from October of

¶65

¶66

be fastened on the petitioner for 2000. In such a situation, no liability can Entertainment Tax dues which arose before the lease^commenced.

¶67

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed^absolvingthe . However, it would be open to petitioner of any liability to pay the said arrears rd the said dues from the 3 the Commercial Tax Department to recover

¶68

respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶69

shall stand closed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any

¶70

Sd/-P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Vizianagaram, of Commericial Taxes, Cum Entertainment Tax

¶75

1. The Asst.Commissioner Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District.

¶76

KURITI BHASKARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶77

1. One CC to SRI COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court of Andhra Pradesh

¶78

4 Two CCs to GP FOR [OUT]

¶79

One CC to SRI RAMA RAO GHANTA, Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two C.D Copies. MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED: 18/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.13T9^of 2006

ANOS^
S’
,,s 0 6 FEB 2025
Current Section j.
^spatch^

¶85

ALLOWING THE W.P

¶86

WITHOUT COSTS

M/S Sri Veerabhadra Picture Palace v. the Deputy Commissioner and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sri Veerabhadra Picture Palace v. the Deputy Commissioner and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Koduru Rajesh Reddy, Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

Sri. Nandipati Narasimha Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. D. Lakshmi Devi

Y.Mohan Reddy, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer No.Iii

Manjeera Solar Systems Vs the Deputy Assistant Commissioner

M/s. Delta Mechcons (India) Limited, repby its Managing Vs The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes at