Disposed

Jalavihar Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Nov 2016WP/37098/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed by a contract awardee seeking a directive to consider representations for exemption from entertainment tax. The petitioner, awarded a BOT contract for an amusement park, argued that 'amusement' does not fall under 'entertainment'. The court directed the first respondent to consider the applications in light of the Commissioner's report and pass orders wi

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's exemption applications dated 13-11-2015 and 06-9-2016 in light of the Commissioner's report and pass orders within 6 weeks. Closed miscellaneou

Jalavihar Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD

¶2

Writ Petition No.37098 of 2016

¶3

Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)

¶4

The petitioner who was awarded the contract for a special tourism project under the Tourism Policy of the Government of Telangana has come up with the present writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider their representations for exemption under Section 8 of the Telangana Entertainment Tax Act read with Rule 34 of the Telangana Entertainment Rules.

¶5

Heard Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.Anil Kumar, appeared on instructions from the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes (Telangana).

¶6

It appears that by G.O.Ms.No.220, Youth

¶7

Advancement, Tourism and Culture Department, dated 07-11-2000, the petitioner was awarded a contract on BuildOperate-Transfer (BOT) terms, in Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Mode, for the development of an Amusement Park. Though under the terms of the contract, all taxes were exempt, the Government now took a stand that the expression “amusement” is different from “entertainment”. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representations dated 13-11-2015 and 06-9-2016 under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules for the grant of exemption. Since those

¶8

¶9

representations have not evoked any response, the petitioner is before us.

¶10

There is no dispute about the fact that under Section 8(1) of the Telangana Entertainment Tax Act, the State Government is entitled to grant exemption by way of special order, from payment of the entertainment tax, subject to the prescriptions contained in the Statute. Rule 34 of the Telangana Entertainment Tax Rules, prescribes the procedure for the submission of the applications for exemption. The petitioner has submitted their applications for exemption in terms of the Statute and the Rules.

¶11

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider the applications of the petitioner for exemption dated 13-11-2015 and 06-9-2016 in the light of the report already submitted by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in CCT’s Reference No.AI(3)/2/2012, dated 07-5-2016 and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of 6 (six) weeks. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶12

___________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶13

______________________ G.SHYAM PRASAD, J.

¶14

14^th November, 2016. Ak

¶15

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD

¶18

Writ Petition No.37098 of 2016 (per VRS, J.)

¶19

14^th November, 2016. (Ak)

Jalavihar Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalavihar Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Shaik Shafee

Kajjam Sridhar Vs The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad

Dr. P.Veeranna Goud, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Mrs. v.Suvarna Phani, Vs Bank of India, Khairtabad Branch

Smt T. Govindamma, Vs The State Bank Of India

Y.v.Ramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh