M/S Solitaire Cinemas vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Held

The Court held that the petition stood disposed of. The impugned orders were set aside. The State was granted liberty to proceed as per the Punjab Entertainments Tax (Cinematographs Show) Act, 1954. The Court noted the admission by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab, regarding a vacuum in the Punjab Entertainments Duty Act, 1955, after the omission of Rule 17 of the Punjab Entertainments Duty Rules, 1956, and the undertaking to take a conscious decision on consequential actions. The affidavit confirming the withdrawal of the impugned order with liberty to proceed under the 1954 Act was also considered. The petitioner expressed satisfaction with these developments. The ratio decidendi is that orders passed without a clear statutory basis, especially when a statutory vacuum is admitted, are unsustainable and should be set aside, with liberty granted to proceed under the appropriate law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Solitaire Cinemas, Ludhiana, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 06.03.2019 passed by respondent No.5 for the years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab, acknowledged a vacuum in the Punjab Entertainments Duty Act, 1955, following the omission of Rule 17 of the Punjab Entertainments Duty Rules, 1956, in 1966, and undertook to make a conscious decision on consequential actions. An affidavit filed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (GST), Punjab, stated that the impugned order had been withdrawn with liberty to proceed under the Punjab Entertainments Tax (Cinematographs Show) Act, 1954.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 06.03.2019, passed by respondent No.5 for the years 2013-14 to 2016-17, are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of the orders in light of the statutory vacuum). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought the quashing of the impugned orders. The petitioner's counsel stated satisfaction with the subsequent developments. Revenue's contention: The State, through the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab, admitted a vacuum in the relevant Act due to the omission of a rule and undertook to take a conscious decision. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (GST), Punjab, filed an affidavit stating the impugned order was withdrawn with liberty to proceed under a different Act.