IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.6258 of 2002 Between: Swamy Shankar Talkies, Rep. by its Partner Mr.Ch. Ramesh, S/o. Late Sri Ch. Swamy, R/o. Hayathanagar, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Entertainment Tax Officer (A.C.T.O.) Saroornagar, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the 4th Respondent Dated 14-2-2002 passed in Rc.No. B2/76/01 and quash the same declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Memo Nos. 40961/Genl.A2/99-1 dated 27-10-1999, Memo No. 40961/Genl.A2/99-3 dated 10-4-2000 and Memo No. 8854/Genl.A1/2000-1 dated 28-6-2000, null and void and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to collect the Entertainment Tax reduced the Gross Collection Capacity due to reduction in seating Capacity w.e.f. 4- 4-2001, following the order of the 3rd Respondent made in Rc.No.C2/553/2001 dated 10.10.2001, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.V.S.R.GOPALAKRISHNAMA CHARI Counsel for the Respondents: SPL GP FOR TAXES The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.6258 of 2002 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner-Theatre files this Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking to assail the order of the fourth respondent dated 14.02.2002 in Rc.No.B2/76/01 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Memo Nos.40961/Genl.A2/99-1 dated 27.10.1999, 40961/Genl.A2/99-3 dated 10.04.2000 and 8854/Genl.A1/2000-1 dated 28.06.2000 and for a consequential direction to the fourth respondent to collect the Entertainment Tax in accordance with the gross collection capacity due to reduction in seating capacity with effect from 04.04.2001 following the order of the third respondent in Rc.No.C2/551/2001 dated 10.10.2001. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition, are that originally the theatre is having 690 seating capacity and the same was reduced to 495. The Joint Collector has granted permission on 04.04.2001. On a consideration thereof, the authority rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it is not entitled for the same having regard to the provisions of the A.P. Entertainments Act, 1939 (‘the Act’ for brevity) and the Rules made there under. Hence, the Writ Petition. In reply, the respondents filed a counter affidavit denying the above. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that in view of Section 6 of the Act, the authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner since any such benefit shall only be for the respective period as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Now, the only point that arises for consideration is only in regard to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit in regard to paying of Entertainment Tax on the ground of reduction of seating capacity from 04.04.2001. There is no dispute in regard to the aforesaid chequered events that the petitioner got reduced seating capacity from 690 of 495 as per the order dated 10.10.2001. However, the extended benefit is only from 04.04.2001. In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court in Ramana 70 M M Theatre v. A.C.T.O – I, Ananthapur & Another[1] held that the assessee is liable to pay the tax for the whole financial year in spite of the reduction of the seating capacity. Admittedly, the reduction occurred during the financial year. In view of the same, we do not find any merits or justification for seeking such benefit on such account. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J) 1st May 2008 RRB [1] 33 STJ 203