IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5397 of 2008 M/S JAI HIND TALKIES,DEHRI-ON-SONE Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 13.8.2008 The petitioner is a proprietor of an entertainment and has a Cinema Hall at Dehri-on-Sone. As required under the Bihar Entertainment Act they were required to pay certain amounts in discharge of their entertainment tax liability. Because of certain dispute the entertainment tax authority treated the petitioner to be a defaulter and assessments were made and demands were raised. Against those assessment and demands he preferred an appeal which was pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes along with stay application. Neither said application was being disposed of nor appeal taken up but in the meantime by annexure-5, the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes wrote to the District Magistrate, who is the licensing authority for licence of the Cinema Hall under the Bihar Cinema Regulatin Act and Rules framed thereunder, not to renew the cinema licence of the defaulters like the petitioner unless the Commercial Taxes Department gives a No Objection Certificate. Then by annexures-6 a notice was published in the newspaper directing the petitioner and other defaulters to deposit tax failing which they would be prosecuted. To the writ petition the State for the Department of Commercial Taxes filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that during the pendency of the application the appeals filed by the petitioner have been rejected. It is further stated that they acted in the interest of statutory revenue in requesting the District Magistrate not to renew the cinema licence and 2 issuing public notice as aforesaid. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. So far as first issue with regard to the validity of request by the Commercial Taxes Department to the licensing authority under the Cinema Regulation Act not to renew the licence is concerned, the action is misconceived. For realization of the dues under the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder, there are adequate provisions for assessment of tax and enforcement of realization thereof. The authority instead of resorting to those provisions cannot act otherwise and request statutory authorities under different enactments to use their power to coerce the petitioner to pay tax under another Act. Such a procedure is contra Constitutional provision and has already been deprecated by this Court in the case of Amarpali Cinema Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007(1) PLJR 174. In that view of the matter, the Collector/District Magistrate is not to act on the request of the Commercial Taxes Department as contained in annexure-5 nor can such an extra statutory request be made. I may point out here that entire action of the State is just counter productive. If cinema exhibition is stopped, as requested by the Commercial Taxes Department, so will stop the payment of entertainment tax because entertainment tax is paid per show that is held. If for realization of past dues future payments are stopped, it would virtually amount to killing the goose that lays golden egg and would be 3 counter productive. Why the authorities are not taking action as provided under the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder are not disclosed. Such a request is, thus, unsustainable and quashed as such. The petitioner stated that in the counter affidavit it has now been disclosed that his statutory appeal has been dismissed. He intents to take statutory remedy but till now certified copies are not being made available for the said purpose. In any view of the matter he seeks leave to impeach those orders in a proper statutory proceedings that may be available to him. Leave is granted. The writ petition with the observation and directions aforesaid stands disposed of. Md.S. (Navaniti Prasad Singh)