S.B.SINHA, J. - (1.) CONSTITUTIONALITY of a notification issued by the Government of the Andhra Pradesh levying different rates of entertainment tax is in question in this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner herein under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner herein carries on its business as a distributor of motion film at Hyderabad. The field of his activity is said to be distribution of Hindi films in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(2.) THE State of Andhra Pradesh made an Act known as "Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act, 1939". THE said Act was enacted in terms of Entry No. 62 of List II of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India which reads as under :- "62. Taxes on luxuries including tax on entertainment, amusement and betting and gambling." It is not in dispute that the rate of tax in respect of Telugu film was fixed at 10% and that of non-Telugu film has been fixed at 24%. Representations were made to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to withdraw the said purported discriminatory tax by the Andhra Pradesh State Film Television and Theatre Development Corporation Ltd. in terms of its letter dated 9th/11th December, 2002 addressed to the Secretary to the Government, GA (IandPR) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad as also other bodies and parliamentarians, which was not acceded to. The decision of the State was communicated to the petitioner by the Principal Secretary to the Government in terms of its letter dated 19.9.2003 stating; "I invite attention to the reference cited and inform that Government have carefully examined your representation for grant of Tax relief to the Hindi Films on par with Telugu Films and consider that there is no need to extend such concession. Accordingly the representation first cited is hereby rejected."
(3.) WE may notice that the number of Hindi Films certified by the Censor Board is highest in India. Films made in Telugu, however, appears to be next in number as would appear from the following comparative chart:- JUDGEMENT_744_TLPRE0_2007Html1.htm Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioner inter-alia would submit that the impugned levy is not justified inasmuch as; 1. It contravenes Article 351 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is discriminatory in nature and thus ultra-vires Article 14 thereof.;