M/s Radhika Water and Amusement Park Kota Vs The State Of C.g. and Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:2022

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1219 of 2013

¶6

M/s Radhika Water And Amusement Park Kota Kota Road, Ganiyari Bilaspur, Registered Office Dayalband Bilaspur, Through Its Partner Hasmukhrai Sachdev, Age 73 Yrs, S/o Lt Karsandas Sachdev, R/o Bakul Bhawan, Tikrapara, Bilaspur, Dist Bilaspur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1. The State Of C.G. Through Secretary, Commercial And Industry Deptt, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. Special Secretary, Commercial And Industry Deptt, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. Additional Director Industry, Industrial Directorate, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4. General Manager District Trade And Industries Department, Bilaspur, Dist Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

13.01.2025

¶18

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶19

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue the appropriate writ/orders by setting aside an order dated 22/09/12 (Annexure P/9) passed by the respondent no. 2.

¶20

2

¶21

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents to allow an application of the petitioner for declaring them as a Industry and registered the petitioner as a Industry from the date of application.

¶22

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents to extend and grant all benefits of Industry to the petitioner from the date of application, treating the petitioner as a Registered Industry.

¶23

10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to call the records of the court's below.

¶24

10.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running a

¶26

water and amusement park at Kota Road, Village Ganiyari, District Bilaspur, which comes under the category of Tourism as per the notification of the State Government dated 27.03 . 2002. He would further submit that the petitioner moved an application for the registration before respondent No. 4 as an Industry on 22.10.2003. He would also submit that the application of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide Order dated 29.03.2004 without affording an opportunity of hearing. It is contended that the water and amusement park run by the petitioner was recommended to be declared as “Industry” under the category of “Tourism” by the respondent authorities on various dates, but respondent No. 3 failed to consider those recommendations. It is further contended that a notification was issued by the State Government on 23.05.2009, whereby, water parks and entertainment parks were granted relaxation of 50% of entertainment duty under the Tourism Incentive Scheme, 2006 for a period of five years. It is stated that as the State has already notified water parks and entertainment parks as Tourism Industry, the respondent authority ought to have registered the petitioner as “Industry”. It is further stated that

¶27

3

¶28

the order passed by the respondent authorities dated 29.03.2004; 22.09.2012 is liable to be quashed.

¶29

On the other hand, Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the first notification was issued on 27.03.2002 and only the word “Tourism” has been used by the State Government. He would further submit that the various industries were granted relaxation from stamp duty chargeable on the instruments of sale/lease. He would also submit that the water parks were not included in that notification. It is contended that the subsequent notification was issued on 23.05.2009, whereby 50% of entertainment duty was relaxed, but it was effective for a period of five years which came to an end on 23.05.2014 and the petitioner has not placed any documents to demonstrate that the validity of the said notification was extended by the State further. It is further contended that the respondent authorities have considered the application of the petitioner in light of the notifications issued from time to time and thereafter, rejected it. It is stated that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed and no case is made out for interference.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶31

The petitioner is running a water amusement park; it moved an application on 22.10.2003 for the registration of an Industry according to the notification dated 27.03.2002. Vide notification dated 27.03.2002, the State Government has relaxed stamp duty chargeable on the instruments of sale/lease in favour of “New Industry” including the “Tourism” industry. In that notification, the water and amusement parks are not included. The application was moved by the petitioner pursuant to the notification dated 27.03.2002. On 23.05.2009, the State Government issued another

¶32

4

¶33

notification, whereby, 50% rebate was extended to the Tourism Industry under the Tourism Incentive Scheme, 2006 for a period of five years and the benefit was extended to Health Farms (Club), Entertainment Park, Water Parks, Centre of Adventure/Sports activities and any other Scheme of entertainment. This notification was issued after 2003 and was effective for a period of five years. There is no document placed by the petitioner to substantiate that this benefit was extended after the expiry of five years. This notification states about 50% rebate from entertainment duty and there is no direction to register those water parks, entertainment parks etc., as “Tourism Industry”; therefore, no case is made out for interference.

¶34

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders dated 29.03.2004 and 22.09.2012. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). d

¶35

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶36

$iddhant

M/s Radhika Water and Amusement Park Kota v. The State Of C.g. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Radhika Water and Amusement Park Kota v. The State Of C.g. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jitendra Kumar Thakur, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nanki Bai Vs Sub Divisional Officer

Laxminarayan Sahu Vs Chetan Gayakwad

Ku. Sunita (Died), Lrs Sahodari Pando Vs the Chairman

R.P.Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India and Anr.

Devichand Shrishrimal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.