THE ENTERTAINMENT TAX OFFICERversusAMBAE PICTURE PALACE

              THE ENTERTAINMENT TAX OFFICER                                    A
                            v.
                  AMBAE PICTURE PALACE

                          OCTOBER 28, 1993
                                                                               B
         [KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.]


      Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939: Tax on the basis of
gross collection capacity pa show-Repeated Amendments-Retrospectivity
given to the Amending Act 16 of 1985-Explanation from the State providing      C
for retrospectivity-Not required-Competence to enact laws prospectively as
also retrospectively.

       The Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 provided for levy
of tax at the fixed rate on the basis of percentage of payment made by a
person for admission to any entertainment. By an Ordinance in 1983 cer- D
tain amendments were brought about. This Amendment Ordinance
amended Section 4 and increased the rate of tax on the admission rate and
Se1.:tion 5 was substituted, which categorised theaters and the area in which
the threater was situated. By another Ordinance issued on 21st March,
1984, to be effective from 23rd March, 1984, the measure of !aX payable E
under Section 4 was altered and the proprietors of theaters became liable
to pay tax at the gross collection capacity per show at certain percentage.
The percentage of taxation again differed depending upon the location and
type of the theater. This Ordinance was replaced by Act No. 24 of1984 and
its validity was upheld by this Court.
                                                                               .F
      Consequent upon change of Government in the State, the new
Government promulgated an Ordinance with effect from 7th September,
1984, restoring the position as it stood prior to 23rd March, 1984. However,
on the reinstatement of the old Government, an Ordin~nce was issued on
25th October, 1984 with retrospective effect from 7th September, 1984,
reintroducing payment of entertainment tax on the basis of gross collection    G
capacity of the show. This Ordinance was replaced by Act No. 16 of 1985.
The retrospectivity given to it was challenged before the High Court by way
of Writ Petitions. The High Court upheld the challenge on the ground that
no explanation had been given in the Act providing for retrospectivity of
the Amendment Act.                                                             H
                                      453
    454                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, the State
    preferred an appeal before this Court.

            Allowing the appeal, this Court

          HELD : 1. If the Parliament or the State Legislatures have com-
B   petence to legislate, they can do so prospectively as well as retrospectively
    and taxation laws are no exception to this power. [457-E]

          The Union of India v. Madan Gopal Kabra, [1954) S.C.R. 541; Mis
    Klishnamurthi & Co. etc. v.State Madras andAnr., [1973) 2 S.C.R. 54 andRai
C   Ram Klis/ma & Ors. v. The State of Bihar, [1964] 1S.C.R.897, relied on.

          2. Though it is not for the State to justify or explain the necessity for
    the amendment even in relation to retrospectivity of the Act but obviously,
    on the face of it, there appeared to be a change of policy by a succeeding
    Government on the policy pursued by its predecessor. Surely, the succes-·
D   sor Government can have different rules from their predecessor in includ-
    ing the matters relating to taxation or mode of taxation or basis of taxation
    or objects of taxation etc. No explanation was required from the state for
    the Amending Act having retrospective effect. [459-C-D]

            D. Cawasji and Company v. State of Mysore an4 Ors., 58 S.T.C. 1
E (S.C.), distinguished.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 90 of
    1987.

F        From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.86 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in W.P. No. 15363/84.

         C. Sitaramaiah, T.V.S.N. Chari, Nikhil Nayyar, Ms. Promila and Ms.
    Bharati Reddy for the Appellant.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
          YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. This is an appeal on behalf of the Enter-
    tainment Tax Officer-I, Khammam and the State of Andhra Pradesh
    against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
    dated 3rd April, 1986 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court struck
H   down Section 1 of Act No. 16of1985 (the Andhra Prade_sh Entertainments
                TAX OFFICER v. P. PALACE [DAYAL, J.)                     455

Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985) to the extent of its applicability retrospec-        A
tively between 7th September, 1984 to 24th October, 1984.

     ;ro appreciate the point it is necessary to deal with the history of the
Entertainments Tax Acts in Andhra Pradesh.

      The Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 (Act No. X of             B
1939) provided for levy of tax at the fixed rate on the basis of percentage
of payment made by a person for admission to any entertainment. How-
ever, in 1976 by Act No. 58 of 1976, Section 4-C was introduced under
which tax was levied on entertainment show on the basis of certain per-
centage of the gross collection capacity of the show within the jurisdiction    C
of any local authority whose population does not exceed 25,000. Under
Section 5, as introduced by that Act, it was open to a proprietor of the
cinema to enter into an agreement with the concerned authority to com-
pound the tax payable under Section 4-C for a fixed sum in accordance
with the formula prescribed under Section 5. This continued till December
31, 1983.                                                                       D
       By the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax (Amendment) Or-
dinance, 1983 certain amendments were brought about. This Amendment
Ordinance amended Section 4 and increased the rate of tax on the admis-
sion rate and Section 5 was substituted. Section 5, as amended, provided E
that the proprietor may, at his option and subject to such conditions as may
be prescribed, pay the amount of the tax to the State Government every
week as per the corresponding entry in colw t (3) thereof. The table given
under Section 5 categorised theaters and the area in which the theater is
situated.
                                                                                F
       By the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No. 9 of 1984 issued on 21st
March, 1984 with effect from 23rd March, 1984 the measure of tax payable
under Section 4 was altered and the proprietor became liable to pay tax at
the gross collection capacity per show at certain percentage. The percent-
age of taxation again differed depending upon the location and type of the
theater. A Bill which bec:ame later the Amendment Act No. 24of1984 was          G
passed by the Legislative Assembly but not by the Legislative Council. In
this situation Ordinance No. 14of1984 was promulgated which was issued
on 27th April, 1984 bringing into force Sections 3, 6 and 13 with effect from
23rd March, 1984. Amendment Act No. 24 of 1984 received the assent of
the Governor on 20th May, 1984. Section 2 of this Amendment Act states          H
    456                  SUPRE_ME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A "sections 3, 6, and 13 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 23rd
    March, 1984 and the remaining provisions except section 16 shall be
    deemed to have come into force on the 1st January, 1984". Section 3 of this
    Amendment Act substituted Section 4 in the same terms as in the Or-
    dinance 9 of 1984.
B          It .appears there was a change of Government in Andhra Pradesh
    and the new Government promulgated Ordinjlnce No. 26 of 1984 with
    effect from 7th September, 1984. By this Ordinance the position as it was
    prior to 23rd March, 1984 was restored i.e. the entertainment tax was
    payable on the actual payment received for admission to the entertainment
C   and substituted Section 4 to this effect.

         It appears there was again a change of Government and the old
  Government which had gone out of power, had came to power. On 25th
  October, 1984 Ordinance No. 31 of 1984 was issued, with retrospective
  effect from 7th September, 1984, reintroducing payment of entertainment
D tax on the basis of gross collection. capacity of the show. This Ordinance
  was replaced by Act No. 16 of 1985 which became effective from 7th
  September, 1984: It may be mentioned that Ordinance No. 26 of 1984
  remained only as an Ordinance and no Act was passed in terms thereof.

E         Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.
    31 of 1984 inter alia provided that it shall be deemed to have come into
    force on 7th September, 1984 and repealed Andhra Pradesh Ordinance
    No. 26of1984. This Ordinance was replaced by Act No. 16of1985 which
    became effective, like Ordinance No. 26 of 1984, with effect from 7th
    September, 1984.
F
          A batch of writ petitions were filed questioning the Andhra Pradesh
    Entertainments Tax Act as amended by Act No. 24 of 1984 i.e. the
    amendment introduced for levying the tax on gross collection capacity in
    the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court upheld this Act. On
G   appeal this Court affirmed the said decision which is reported as
    Venkateshwara Theatre v. State of Andhra P~adesh and others, [1993) 3 SCC
    677.

        It appears .the provmons of Section 1 sub-Section (2) gtvmg
  retrospective effect as conthined in the Amendment Act No. 24 of 1984
H was challenged in the batch of writ petitions again. The High Court of
                 TAXOFFICERv. P.PALACE (DAYAL,J.)                           457

Andhra Pradesh upheld the contention of the petitioners therein and stuck          A
down the retrospectivity of the Amendment Act No. 16 of 1985 on the
ground that no explanation had been given in the Act providing for
retrospectivity of the Amendment Act. As stated above it is against this
decision of the High Court that the pr!!sent appeal is directed.

       The High Court dealt with the reasonableness of the retrospective           B
provision and stated that the Government did not offer any explanation for
retrospectivity of the tax law and held that to the extent it directs retrospec-
tivity between 7th September, 1984 to 24th October, 1984, it is arbitrary,
unreasonable and ultra vires the Constitution. The High Court purported
to have followed the ratio of the decision in the case of D. Cawasji and           C
Company v. State of Mysore and others, 58 STC 1 (S.C.). So far as the
Constitutional validity of the Amending Act is concerned, as we have
noticed earlier, it has already been upheld by a Bench of this Court in the
case of Venkateshwara Theatre (supra).

     Unfortunately nobody appeared during the hearing on behalf of the D
respondent before us and, therefore, we did not have advantage of any
submission on its behalf.

       If the Parliament or the State Legislature have competence to legis-
late, they can do so prospectively as well as retrospectively and taxation         E
laws are no exception to this power. (Reference in this connection may be
made to the decision of this Court in The Union of India v. Madan Gopai
Kabra, [1954) S.C.R. 541 at pages 554-555). Again in Mis. Krishnamurthi &
Co. etc. v. State of Madras and another, [1973) 2 S.C.R. 54, this Court held
that the legislative power conferred on the appropriate legislatures to enact
laws in respect of topic covered by the several entries in the three lists can     F
be exercised both prospectively and retrospectively.

      Again in the case of Rai Ramkrishna and Others v. The State of Bihar,
(1964) 1 S.C.R. 897, a Constitutional Bench of this Court observed thus :

             "The power of taxing people and their property is an essential G
         attribute of Government and the Government can legitimately
         exercise the said power by reference to the objects to which it is
         applicable to the utmost extent to which Government thinks it
         expendient to do so. The objects to be taxed so long as they happen
         to be within the legislative competence of the legis~ature, can be H
    458                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A          taxed by the legislature according to the exigencies of its needs,
           because there can be no doubt that the State is entitled to raise
           revenue by taxation. The quantum of.tax levied by the taxing statue,
           the conditions subject to which it is levied, the manner in which it
           is sought to be recovered, are all matters within the competence
           of the legislature."
B
           Again the Bench observed :

               "Where the legislature can make a valid law, it can provide not
           only for the prqspective operation of the material provisions of the
           said law, but it can also. provide for the retrospective operation of
c          the said provisions."

        We may mention that the statement of objects and reasons of the
    Amending Act No. 16 of 1985 states as follows :

           "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
D
               The Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tai (Amendment) Act,
           1984 (Act No. 24 of 1984) brought about the change in the system
           of levy of Entertainments Tax in the State, whereby the proprietors
           of entertainments are liable to pay tax on the gross collection
E          capacity on every show in respect of entertainments held in the
           threaters located in the local areas specified in the table under
           Section 4 calculated at the rates specified therein with a provision
           for option. u~der Section 5 of the Act.

               In the month of September, 1984, the then Government decided
F          to levy enfortainments tax on payment for admission to entertain-
           ments in the place of levy of entertainments tax on the gross
           collection capacity on every show in respect of entertainments held
           in the threaters. Accordingly, the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments
           Tax (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance 26of1984)
           was promulgated by the Governor on the 4th September, 1984.
G
              The Government subsequently on a review of the decisions
           taken by the then Government have decided to restore the system
           of collection of tax on the basis of gross collection capacity on
           every show and to revert back to the position as obtained prior to
H          the promulgation of Ordinance 26 of 1984 and to repeal the




                                                                        I
                TAX OFFICER v. P. PALACE (DAYAL,J.]                      459

        aforesaid Ordinance with retrospective effect from the 7th Sep-         A
        tember, 1984.

            As the State Legislature was not then in session and as it was
        considered necessary to give effect to the above decision immedi-
        ately, the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax (Fourth Amend-
        ment) Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance 31 of 1984) was promulgated            B
        by the Governor on the 24th October, 1984."

      Though it is not for the State to justify or explain the necessity for
the amendment even in relation to retrospectivity of the Act but obviously,
on the face of it, there appeared to be a change of policy by a succeeding      C
Government on the policy pursued by its predecessor. Surely the successor
Government can have different rules from their predecessor including the
matters relating to taxation or mode of taxation or bassis of taxation or
objects of taxation etc. No. explanation was required from the State for the
Amending Act having retrospectively effect.                                     D

      The learned Judges of the High Court sought to apply the principles
of Cawasji's case (supra). It appears to us that the principles laid down in
that case were not applicable to the fact of the present case. In Cawasji's
case, the Government started collecting sales tax on the sale price of
Arrack together with excise duty and cesses payable thereon. So computed        E
the sales tax came to 24 paise. This was challenged by the Arrack contrac-
tors. The Mysore High Court held that the Government could not collect
sales tax on excise duty since it was not a part of the selling price. During
1968-69 the State Government collected the sales tax computing the sales
tax at 6 1/2% of the actual sale price of Arrack without including excise       F
duty or cess. It appears that during th<; pendency of the appeal in this
Court, the privilege of vending liquor in the year 1968-69 was sold without
any variation in the prices of Arrack fixed by the Government during
previous year at 55 paise per litre. Though the appellants obtained order
of stay from April, 1986 various other contractors paid sales tax on the sale
price of Arrack together with excise duty and cess. The Government              G
withdrew the appeal from this Court. In view of the finality of the judgment
of the Mysore High Court the Government became liable to refund the
excess amount of sales tax collected from the licencees and the contractors.
With the object of avoiding liability of refund of the excess amount so
collected, Ordinance No. 3 of 1969 was passed on 19th July, 1969 which          H
    460                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 s.c::.R.

A   ultimately became an Act amending the Sales Tax Act. By virtue of this
    amendment the sales tax was increased from 6 1/2% to 45% and the Act
    stated that it became effective from 1st April, 1966. In the Objects and
    Reasons of this Act it was specifically mentioned "in order to get over the
    effects of the High Court decision and retain the money already recovered
B by the Government, it is proposed to enhance the rate of tax on Arrack to
    45% with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1966." The validity of this
    Amendment Act was challenged as unreasonble and arbitrary. The
    Amendment Act did not seek to rectify or remove the defect or lacunae
    but was only brought about for the purpose of circumventing the judgement
    of the High Court with the object of avoiding liability to refund the amount
C which was illegally collected as sales tax from the appellants therein by
    raising the rate of tax from' 6 1/2% to 45% retrospectively. This contention
  . was accepted by the learned Judges of the Mysore High Court and they
    took the view that the levy retrospectively raising the tax was illegal as it
    was only to circumvent the judgment.

D        The facts of the present case are totally different. No judgment of
    any Court was sought to be circumvented.

          For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and the judgment
    under appeal of the High Court is set aside. The provisions of sub-section
E   (2) of Section 1 of Act No. 16 of 1985 arc upheld. Since the respondent
    has not put in appearance, no order is passed in relation to costs.

    V.M.                                                        Appeal allowed.