IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 1.4.2011
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition No.8558 of 2011
1 COIMBATORE - ERODE - TIRUPPUR [ PETITIONER ]
& NILGIRI DISTRICT EXHIBITORS ASSOCIATION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY G.D.GOPALAKRISHNAN
Vs
1 STATE OF TAMIL NADU
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT HOME (CINEMAS) DEPARTMENT
FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9.
2 THE COMMISSIONER
COMMERCIAL TAXES CHEPAUK
CHENNAI-5. [ RESPONDENTS ]
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his Letter No. D3/12754/2010 dated 08.10.2010 and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam
For respondents : Ms.D.Geetha AGP for R1
Mr.R.Mahadevan AGP (T)
for R2
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Association challenging the communication issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, the second respondent herein, dated 8.10.2010. The impugned communication issued to all the Joint Commissioners (Teritorial) reads as follows:
“As you are aware, the Government of Tamil Nadu grants exemption from payment of Entertainment Tax for films titled in Tamil. The formal exemption orders are issued for each and every Tamil titled film only after getting approval from the Committee formed for this purpose. But, this formal approval is given subsequent to the release of the film.
In this connection, it is pointed out that the exemption granted for “Tamil titled” films would be effective only from the date on which the exemption orders are issued.
In view of the above, I request you to instruct all the Entertainment Tax Officers of your Division to issue notices and collect the Entertainment Tax due with interest for the period from the date of release and the date of issue of exemption orders.
A special report on the action taken in this regard should be sent to this office within a fortnight’s without fail.”
2. At this stage of the heearing of the writ petiton, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the second respondent had pointed out that the impugned order is only an internal communication and it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same. He had also submitted that the writ petition is premature in nature.
3. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition, as it is devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the individual members of the petitioner association to challenge the orders to be passed by the authorities concerned, if any, if they are aggrieved by the same, before the appropriate authority or forum, in the manner known to law. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.
lan
To:
1 STATE OF TAMIL NADU
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT HOME (CINEMAS) DEPARTMENT
FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9.
2 THE COMMISSIONER
COMMERCIAL TAXES CHEPAUK
CHENNAI 5