Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"[3-A. Extra charges for maintenance of cinema and] air-cooled and air conditioned facility. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the proprietor of a cinema may realise from the person making payment for admission to an entertainment in such cinema, -
(a) an extra charge of [one rupee] which shall be utilised for maintenance of the cinema premises;
(b) in case of a centrally air-cooled or centrally air-conditioned cinema a further extra charge of twenty five paisa and sixty paisa for air-cooling or air-conditioning facility respectively during the period commencing on the fifteenth day of March in any year and ending on the fifteenth day of October next following: Provided that the proprietor of a cinema receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government under any incentive scheme shall not be entitled to realise extra charge under clause (a) daring the period such grant-in-aid is received by him.] xxx xxx xxx The amount of extra charge permitted for maintenance of the cinema premises was 25 paisa as introduced by Act No. 14 of 1992. It was revised to 1 rupee by U.P. Act No, 3 of 1995 with effect from 10.10.1994.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in all the matters analogously. The issue arising for decision is whether the proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 3-A reproduced hereinabove suffers from the vice of invidious discrimination by carving out an artificial classification by dividing the cinema houses into two based on the criterion whether they receive or do not receive benefit of incentive scheme propounded by the State Government and whether such classification has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the cinema owners whether a cinema receives or does not receive grant-in-aid by way of relief in the amount of entertainment tax does hot make any difference so far as the maintenance of cinema house is concerned. It cannot be said that a cinema house receiving grant-in-aid requires no maintenance or lesser maintenance. The proviso therefore brings into existence two classes of cinemas by drawing an artificial dividing line. Both the types of cinemas need maintenance. The object sought to be achieved by beneficial provision incorporated in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3-A is to boost the maintenance of cinema houses. The classification sought to be provided by the proviso does not fulfil the object sought to be achieved by the principal provision. The learned Standing counsel for the State has on the other hand submitted that the distinction between cinemas receiving grant- in-aid under an incentive scheme of the State Government and the cinemas not so receiving the grant-in-aid is substantial and well-defined. The incentive scheme is optional and adopted as a temporary measure by the State Government for encouraging permanent cinema houses located in particular localities indentifiable by reference to population statistics of the previous census. The benefit conferred by the incentive scheme is conditional upon the cinema limiting its admission rate inclusive of taxes to a maximum which was Rs. 2.50 initially, revised to Rs. 5 in the latter schemes. Such cinema houses are clearly distinguishable from those which do not take benefit of the incentive scheme either because they do not opt for it by entering into an agreement thereunder or because they choose to appoint the rate of admission at above Rs.5. The cinemas falling in the later category are entitled to make an extra charge of 25 paisa (later on revised to 1 rupee) which has to be utilised for maintenance of the cinema premises.

In the case at hand it will be seen that at the point of time when the impugned provision was enacted, that is in the year 1992, there existed two classes of cinema owners: one, those who were receiving grant-in-aid under some incentive scheme enunciated by the State Government; and two, such cinema owners as were not receiving such grant-in-aid. It will be seen that the grant-in-aid schemes promulgated by the State Government were temporary schemes having a life span of three to five years which extended incentive depending on the population of the place where the cinema house was situated. It can be said, as was the plea raised before the High Court and also submitted by the learned Standing counsel for the State of U.P before us, that the incentive was available on a staggered scale depending on the size of population catered to by the cinemas situated in rural areas. The incentive was by way of grant-in-aid equivalent to certain percentage of the quantum of entertainment tax collected by the cinema owner for the State Government; As a condition precedent to the entitlement for such grant-in-aid the cinema owners were subjected to a disability of not charging the free for admission beyond a ceiling i.e. Rs. 2.50, later on revised to Rs.5. Such cinema owners formed a class by themselves different and distinct from those cinema owners who were not receiving any grant-in- aid under an incentive scheme and/or were free to charge fee for admission without any restriction as to upper limit, i.e., their fee for admission to entertainment could be, more than Rs. 2.50 or Rs. 5, Such classification is clear, well-defined and real. The object sought to be achieved was to encourage the cinema owners in boosting entertainment facilities available to the people. This was achieved by providing grant-in-aid under an incentive scheme to one class of cinema owners and by permitting recovery of certain amount by way of charges for maintenance to such another class of cinema owners as were not receiving any grant-in-aid. Thus it cannot be said that the classification had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Full Bench has during the course of its judgment observed, and rightly in our opinion, that if the benefit conferred by the impugned amendment was made general, i.e., available to all the cinema owners then the cinema owners operating in rural area would have secured double benefit-one by way of grant-in-aid and other by way of recovering maintenance charges from the cinema-goers exempt from payment of entertainment tax and there is nothing wrong in the Legislature having chosen not to confer such double benefit on the cinema owners already enjoying benefit of an incentive scheme of the State Government, Moreover, it cannot be lost sight of mat the incentive schemes releasing the grant- in-aid were optional. There was no compulsion on the cinema owners to opt for the incentive scheme and have grant-in-aid released to them. Such option was available at the commencement of the scheme and remained available throughout. Such of the cinema owners as felt that the fixation of Rs. 2.50 or Rs.5 as a ceiling on fee for admission was not beneficial to them and they would stand to benefit by opting out from the incentive scheme and availing the benefit of recovering charges for maintenance conferred by the 1992 amendment were always and at any time free to do so.