High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 04 MAD CK 0181

Coimbatore - Erode vs State of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 April 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Jaichandren, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 8558 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 343 words

M. Jaichandren, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner 2 Association challenging the communication issued by the

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, the second Respondent herein, dated 8.10.2010. The impugned communication issued to all the

Joint Commissioners (Territorial) reads as follows:

As you are aware, the Government of Tamil Nadu grants exemption from payment of Entertainment Tax for films titled in Tamil. The formal

exemption orders are issued for each and every Tamil titled film only after getting approval from the Committee formed for this purpose. But, this

formal approval is given subsequent to the release of the film.

In this connection, it is pointed out that the exemption granted for ""Tamil titled"" films would be effective only from the date on which the exemption

orders are issued.

In view of the above, I request you to instruct all the Entertainment Tax Officers of your Division to issue notices and collect the Entertainment Tax

due with interest for the period from the date of release and the date of issue of exemption orders.

A special report on the action taken in this regard should be sent to this office within a fortnight''s without fail.

2.

At this stage of the hearing of the writ petiton, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing 3 for the second Respondent had

pointed out that the impugned order is only an internal communication and it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge the same. He had also

submitted that the writ petition is premature in nature.

3.

In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition, as it is devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition stands

dismissed. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the individual members of the Petitioner association to challenge the orders to

be passed by the authorities concerned, if any, if they are aggrieved by the same, before the appropriate authority or forum, in the manner known

to law. No costs. Connected M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.