Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, j. - (1.) Heard Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3-State and Sri Dipak Seth, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5. At the outset, Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has drawn our attention towards the order dated 20.12.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.30246 (MB) of 2017, M/s Banke Bihari Cable TV Network through Owner Rajesh Gupta v. State of U.P. and others and submitted that earlier in 2012, there was an absolute stay granted by the Apex Court in the matter of Tata Sky Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others (S.L.P. No.28058 of 2012). Later on, the said order has been modified in 2016. All these facts are not brought to the knowledge of the Court. He further submitted that the petitioner in identical circumstances filed writ petition M/s Tyagi Cable TV Network through Sandeep Tyagi v. State of U.P. and others being No.16538 (MB) of 2019 which has been dismissed vide order dated 1.7.2019 which reads as under:- "1. The following main prayers have been made in the petition : (i) Issue a writ, order or direction declaring the provisions of 2(i)(iii), (iv) (vi) and (vii) read with section 3 of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 as ultra vires the legislative competence of the State of U.P. (ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the circular dated 09.06.2014 issued by the Commissioner Entertainment Tax U.P. Lucknow and consequential order dated 18.06.2018 issued by District Magistrate, Shamli contained as annexure no.4 and 6 to this writ petition. (iii)........ (iv)....... (v).......... (vi)...... (vii).... (viii).... (ix)...
(2.) Mr. Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards contents of Annexure-9 (running page 64 of the petition) to contend that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is already seized of similar matter. Recovery of amount from persons similarly placed as the petitioner has been stayed. Similar order be passed in this case.
(3.) We have gone through the contents of document, Annexure-9 which is an order dated 14.5.2019 rendered in Writ Petition No.13465(M/B) of 2019 M/s Bling Ice Ltd. Through Gyanendra Singh Malik v. State of U.P. and others. In the said case, this Court followed a judicial precedent/order dated 25.3.2014 rendered in Writ Petition No.2426 of 2014 Idea Cellular Limited v. State of U.P. and others. In order dated 25.3.2014 (supra), apparently this Court passed orders in terms of order passed by Hon'ble supreme Court of India in S.L.P. No.28058 of 2012 Tata Sky Limited v. State of U.P. and others, and directed/provided the same protection viz no coercive steps would be taken for realisation of the impugned dues till further orders. For exact reference, the order reads as under : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that identical and similar controversy was raised in Writ Petition No.2426 of 2014 (Idea Cellular Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others) wherein the following order was passed on 25.03.2014. He prays for similar interim order. The order dated 25.03.2014 is quoted hereunder:- "Connect and list along with W.P. Nos.12203 (MB) of 2013 and 12207 (MB) of 2013. Three weeks' time as prayed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is allowed to file counter affidavit. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Instant writ petition is directed against the different notices as well as the orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Entertainment Tax State of U.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Unified Access Service Provider/Cellular Mobile Telephone Service Provider for which he pays service tax to the Government of India. He further submits that service provided by the petitioner to the subscribers is not a kind of entertainment, therefore, the State Government has no jurisdiction to charge any tax under the the United Provinces Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937. He also submits that the same question is engaging attention of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Tata Sky Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others (S.L.P. No.28058 of 2012). In the said case Hon'ble the Supreme Court has issued notice on the appeal as well as application for stay and further has been pleased to pass an interim order to the effect that no coercive steps will be taken for realisation of the impugned dues till further orders. Since same very question is involved for consideration of this Court, we also feel it appropriate to observe that the same benefit as provided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case shall be available to the petitioner till further orders of this Court." Since the same controversy has been raised in this writ petition also, we provide that the petitioner shall also be entitled to the same protection as provided in the order dated 25.03.2014 quoted herein above. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit within three weeks. (emphasised by us) ;