Disposed

The Principal Secretary to v. Sushanth Prasad

Madras HC10 Jun 2016WA/665/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Appeal challenging a lower court's decision granting retrospective entertainment tax exemption. The respondent voluntarily left the issue of retrospective power and potential refund open for future adjudication, which the Court accepted.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal and connected Miscellaneous Petition disposed of. Issue on retrospective exemption and refund left open.

The Principal Secretary to Vs Sushanth Prasad — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.06.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

Writ Appeal No.665 of 2016

¶6

and

¶7

CMP No. 8662 of 2016

¶8

The Principal Secretary to the Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 0005. ... Appellants/Respondents -vs-

¶9

Sushanth Prasad Proprietor, M/s. Film Department No.25, Ground Floor Venkatarathinam Street Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶10

Writ Appeal filed Under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 01.04.2016 in W.P.No. 8797 of 2016, allowing the writ petition, so far as it relates to granting exemption with retrospective effect i.e. from 18.03.2016, though order granting exemption of entertainment tax was passed only on 31.03.2016.

¶11

Prayer in W.P.8797 of 2016: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in proceedings No. Sa. Ku.4/569/2012 dt 9.1.2012 and of the 1st respondent in G.O.(D) No.529 dt 31.12.2015 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant entertainment tax exemption to the movie "g[f;H "; coproduced by the petitioner.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

For Appellants : Mr.Hari Babu

¶14

Additional Govt. Pleader (Taxes)

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.A. Muthukumaraswamy

¶16

Senior counsel for Mr. Arun C. Mohan

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

[Judgment of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.]

¶19

Before the Writ Court, the respondent has challenged the proceedings No. Sa.Ku-4/569/2012 dated 09.01.2012 passed by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Tax Department, Chennai-5, the second appellant herein. The writ petitioner has also challenged G.O.(D) No.529 dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai-9, the first appellant herein. While granting exemption, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, has imposed a condition stating that the exemption would commence from the date of issuance of government order. The above said condition is stated to be in line with paragraph No.4 of the G.O. Ms. No.002 dated 03.01.2012, which is extracted below:-

¶20

“4. nfspf;if tuptpyf;F bgw jpiug;glj; jahupg;ghsu;fs; tpz;zg;gf; fl;lzkhf U:.10.000-? (U:gha; gj;jhapuk; kl;Lk;) brYj;jp neuoahf tzpftup MizaUf;F tpz;zg;gpf;fyhk; vd;Wk; nju;t[f;FG Fwpg;gpLk; ehspy; FG cWg;gpdu;fSf;F jpiug;gl';fisj; jahupg;ghsu;fs; jpiuapl;Lf; fhz;gpf;f ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; nfspf;if tuptpyf;fpw;fhd murhiz btspaplg;gLk; ehs; Kjy; mj;jifa jpiug;gl';fs; nfspf;if tuptpyf;fpw;F jFjp bgWk; vd;Wk; muR MizapLfpwJ/ ”

¶21

After considering the rival submissions, vide the order dated 01.04.2016, made in W.P. No. 8797 of 2016, the Writ Court set aside the G.O.(D) No.529 dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department and consequently held that the respondent is entitled for exemption from payment of entertainment tax, from the date of release of the film i.e. 18.03.2016. The order made in W.P. No. 8797 of 2016 is impugned in the instant appeal, in so far as it relates to granting exemption with retrospective effect i.e. from 18.03.2016, though the order granting exemption of entertainment tax was passed only on 31.03.2016.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

On 09.06.2016, when the matter came up for admission, we directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to serve the entire case papers to Mr. J. Abishek, learned counsel, who had appeared for the respondent before the writ court.

¶24

Reverting, Mr. A. Muthukumaraswamy, learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that though the Writ Court has held that the respondent is entitled for exemption from payment of entertainment tax, from the date of release of the Tamil movie “Puzhal” i.e. from 18.03.2016, the respondent would not seek for any refund of entertainment tax, already paid, for the period between 18.03.2016 to 31.03.2016, the date on which the Government have issued orders in G.O. (D) No.104, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 31.03.2016, granting exemption.

¶25

Learned senior counsel further submitted that in as much as the respondent is not interested in seeking refund, the issue as to whether the Government has the power to grant exemption only from the date of issuance of the Government order or not, be left open to be decided in some other appropriate case. Submission of the learned Senior Counsel is placed on record.

¶26

On the above said submission of the learned senior counsel, Mr. Hari Babu, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) has no objection. Therefore, leaving the said issue open to be tested in some other case, we are inclined to dispose of the Writ Appeal, in the above terms.

¶27

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

¶33

The Principal Secretary to the Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶34

The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner, Commercial Tax Departments Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. +1cc to Special Government Pleader SR.31510 +1cc to Mr.Arun C.Mohan, Advocate Sr.31737 W.A.No. 665 of 2016 and

¶35

CMP No. 8662 of 2016

¶36

nrjk[co] srg 30/06/2016

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Principal Secretary to v. Sushanth Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal Secretary to v. Sushanth Prasad

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

The Commissioiner of Customs Vs M/S Proteck Machinery Pvt. Ltd.

The Commisisoner of Central Vs M/S Alpump Ltd. No 170- 172

M/S.Sds Ramcides Crop Science Vs the Commissioner of Central

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S.Bsnl

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S Madras Cements Limited

R. Gowrishankar Vs Commissioner of Service Tax