M/s Satyam Cineplexes Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and others
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
WRIT PETITION, 4694 of 2014, Judgment Date: Feb 09, 2021
Law laid down -
Article 226 of he ConstitutionAvailability of alternative remedy- The writ petition was filed and entertained in the year 2014. It remained pending for more than six years. Despite availability of alternative remedy, it is not proper to relegate the petitioner to avail the said remedy after six years.
M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936- Section 2(f)- “Proprietor”- The definition is wide and includes the persons who are Incharge or responsible for the management of Cinema House. The definition is inclusive and whether such persons are strictly proprietors or not shall be included in the definition of term ‘proprietor’.
The Executive Instructions/ Policy for exemption from Entertainment Tax in M.P.-The policy does not contain the definition of ‘Proprietor/Swami’. Thus, the definition is to be traced from parent statute namely M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936.
The interpretation of statutesThe exemption notification must be interpreted strictly. However, if definition itself is wide, its strict interpretation will also be wide and will include ‘lessee’.
The hierarchy of laws- In our system, the hierarchy is as follows:- (1) The Constitution of India.
(2) The Statutory Law which may be either Parliamentary Law or Law made by the State Legislature.
(3) Delegated or subordinate legislation, which may be in the form of Rules made under the Act, Regulations made under the Act, etc.
(4) Administrative orders or Executive Instructions without any statutory backing.
In the event of ambiguity or contradiction between the definition prescribed in the Act and the Rules/Executive Instructions/Policy-The definition given in the statute must prevail. Similarly, if in the Rules/Policy no definition is given, the definition mentioned in the main enactment will hold the field.
The validity of an order passed by statutory authority- needs to be judged on the basis of reasons assigned therein and cannot be supplemented by assigning different reasons by way of reply/counter affidavit.
M/s Satyam Cineplexes Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and others