wp639'?.()8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARICATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED mm mm mm DAY or auLY,~éoo<.é:'V:
I
ma: HOWBLE muUs*rIcE Marian ._
wig? Pmrnox
Between: ' " 5
Shri G. Lakshmipathi, s/5;" :,at§.%g§';réa1§3;;;;p§::21appa,
Age:52ycars, ()c<::Bu$ines§.-),_ ' V 1 _
Vishnu mcmm Paaacc. %
Netaji. "
;»;aga;i1;~omman;:t;a115g5s3'*:a,12. M ...m'r11*:onm
[By .v;r:o;u ' m' '%%%~a5x:.;_ 2a.gie:)
* '~ ., ._': 'i'*'§'h;s: :State: of 'iiaraataka,
_ ' Rcfittsented by its Secretary,
' "Depa1'f_h~.-cnt of information and Broadcasting,
. Vixi1ia3uawSe»'£zdha,
'V "T3fI&'C{$l'Ii}I1iSSi0I1€I' of Commercial Taxes,
AA _ K.t1Rcad, Gaudhiaagar,
' 'w.,Banga1ore--560 O09,
' 9' "The Commissioner of Infoxmation,
Film Division,
1" F1901', Badami Building,
NR Chowk,
Banga1orc-560 002.
wp6397.f)8
4. The Asst. Commissioner ofE11tert:aiIm1ent « .. 5 » '
Hagaribommanahalli. M " .__
(By Bmt.K.Vidyavwthi. HCGP)
This petition is filed under Aftjelee :2}26Tja:;d. 22'?
Constitution of India prayingV.e'to_ quasl_1"the impfegned :;o1tie1_"" L.
dt.30.1.2008 passed. by R2 vide_vLPxt,J11exiL"e~C.VVi1r.:se:fer' as the"
petitioner herein is concerned eonse'q11en,fly quash the
impugned notice dt.12.02..2008;is-sued by R4 vi::1e,.Ar;§nexuIe-- I)
and etc., ' _ ' --. .
This petition comm' ex: "f¢;a"-E' day, the Court
1. The is called in question
in this s3'.._exV1Vev'is issued in respect of
deficit of «due to the State for the period
02. 11,2097 :5 24; 1 %1.2%oo?i..
'The. respondent granted 100% exemption in
reegaeei of feature film in question 1.e., ‘Krishna’
effect’ fiom 05.10.2007. The exemption was
upto 20.12.2007. The film was referred to
Level Remake Cemmittee to determine the
u:.”s£:atus whether it is an original kaimada film or
3. remake film. The Committee has given its final
if/*2
‘*3
wp6397.08
report on 04.06.2009. The copy of the
produced along with a memo by 1earIied–:* .
Advocate today before the ‘I’§:1e.. ottief
that the feature film ‘K1’ishn;é_”§.s not-eIititled:tei..exe:o§ptioI1 L’
in relation to entertainment ‘ltioweven before such
determination, the aseetssmerit j. as well as the
demand notices _eeV.above”az’e:iss1§ed. I
3. From €.th€3:_u_” 2009 passed by the
T’ thethetepoxt of the High Level
that Krishna’ film is a
remakeof same being the question of fact,
notttttexfere in the Said report of the High
and consequently the order of
Z _ the §.1tate”Goiiem_m.ent dated 04.06.2009. Therefore, the
t H H :tota}__.exetoption as prayed for by the mtitioner cannot be
However, it has to be nofieed that the exemption
Vt “wee gented to the film by the State Government as per
a Annexure–A on 05.10.2007 and the said exemption was
E…/’>
wp6397.G8
4
withdrawn on 20.12.2007. Thus, it is clear that during
the period between 05.10.2007 to 20.12.2007 exemption
has been consciously ganted by the State. ‘the
4th respondent cannot demand the rm
entertainment tax inasmuch as:-‘t’r1e–«fi}r.:; ‘.e>t:11i¥;ited V’
pursuant to 100% exempfion of V’
during the said period. Unde1~.§imnar ci:c0,::;.s£a 0¢es, this”
Court in w.P.No.41137~2009e”td1sp;;$;éd._ of 0:1″ 24.06.2009
I-med that the resmgdetntst demand the
entertatoment 05. 10.2007 and 20. 12.2007.
Since the ui’eepoo:tletu1t:5″tt§.en1seIves had exempted the film
. §’poi.y:i13g eoterteinment tax to the extent of 100% ir;
period, it is not open for the State to
(maria entenainmsnt tax for the said period in
exfeepect the film in question. Accordingly, the following
“«.o:*def”i.o made:
The writ petition is partly aliowed. The petitioner is
» ‘4 liable to pay entertainment tax in accordance with law
except for the period mtween 05.10.2007 and 20.12.2007.
Wp6397.08
Since the demand notice in question is cover¢22§i.’Wiifi”xiz§1
period of excmption, the same if3Mli_ab1c.’ ‘ta ” .
Accordingly. Annexure-D stands ‘A
It is made clear rest in-f. :mf%
petitioner is liable tp pay ‘entelfahnxnegft tax in
accordance with law.