Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Nigam,J.
Heard Sri Ram Yash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.C.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents. In the present case, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.07.09 passed by the respondent no.2.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.09.09 to the extent Rs.3000/- as weekly advance entertainment tax has been ordered to be paid.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no.2 and 3 not to compel to the petitioner to pay weekly advance entertainment tax of Rs.3000/- and the respondents no.s2 and 3 may be directed to accept a sum of Rs.1500/- as weekly advance entertainment tax and the respondents no.2 and 3 may be further directed not to interfere in the running of the temporary video cinema halls of the petitioner situate in Quasba Ramgarh, District Sonbhadra.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no.2 and 3 to adjust the weekly advance entertainment tax which has already been paid by the petitioner weekly for a sum of Rs.2,500/- while demanding the weekly advance entertainment tax of Rs.1500/- or to refund the excess tax paid by the petitioner with interest at 18% per annum from the date it was paid till its realization.
(v) Issue any other and further writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
(vi) Award passed of the writ petition to the petitioner.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is running a travelling video cinema in the name of Prashant Video Hall. The travelling video cinema is defined under Section 2(h) of U.P. Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition by means of Video Rules, 1988 means a video cinema which gives exhibition by means of video in a temporary building. The petitioner has been granted license on 10.7.2009 for the period 27.7.2009 to 26.01.2010 for the period of six months.
Issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Writ Tax No.2187 of 2009, Kamal Ji Vs. State of U.P. & Others decided today. Wherein it has been held that no demand can be raised under Clause (i) of Serial no.9 of the Schedule of the Notification No.1672/11-Ka,Ni.-6-2009- M(92)/2009 dated 4.9.2009 before the expiry of one year. In this view of the matter, the impugned demand is wholly unjustified.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.9.2009 annexure no. 4 to the writ petition passed by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra is set aside.
Order Date :- 21.1.2010 kkg