Holding

The classification created by the proviso is reasonable, has a rational nexus with the legislative objective, and does not infringe Article 14.

Summary

The Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 was amended in 1992 to permit cinema owners to levy an extra maintenance charge under Section 3A, but a proviso barred those receiving a government grant‑in‑aid from imposing this charge. Several cinema owners challenged the proviso as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing that the classification was arbitrary. The Allahabad High Court’s Division Bench struck down the proviso, but a Full Bench later upheld it, holding that the two classes – grant‑in‑aid recipients and non‑recipients – were real, distinct, and served the legislative purpose of encouraging cinema construction while preventing a double benefit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Full Bench, stating that the classification was reasonable, had a rational nexus with the objective, and did not constitute invidious discrimination. Consequently, the Division Bench judgment was set aside, the State’s appeal was allowed, and the Full Bench decision was confirmed.

Issues considered

The proviso to Section 3A of the Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979, which precludes cinema owners receiving grant‑in‑aid from levying an extra maintenance charge, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14
Limitation Acts. Section 5
Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979

Subjects

Article 14reasonable classificationtaxationentertainment taxgrant-in-aidmaintenance chargecinemaUttar Pradeshconstitutional laweconomic regulation

Judgment

A STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
v.
KAMLA PALACE

DECEMBER 17, 1999

B [S.P. BHARUCHA, R.C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979/Constitution
of India, 1950-Section 3A!Article 14-Levy of entertainment tax on payment
for admission to entertainment including cinema-Grant-in-aid scheme
C extended to cinema houses also by a government Order subject to a ceiling
on the maximum admission fee-Act amended in 1989, introduced realisation
of extra charge on account of air-cooling/conditioning-The Actfurther
amended twice-Provided for realisation of extra charge by cinema owners
for maintenance a/so-Proviso to Section 3A excluded cinema houses
D receiving grant-in-aid from realising extra charge for maintenance-
Chal/enged before High Court in a writ petition-Held to be ultra vires by
.a Division Bench-Another Division Bench hearing similar petitions di~sented
with the said decision-Full Bench held it not to be ultra vires-On appeal-
Held, Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable classification by Legislature
for attaining specific ends-Economic and Tax laws enjoy a greater latitude
E than laws relating to civi~ rights-The two classes of cinema owners existed
well before the amendme~t-Cinema owners receiving grant-in-aid formed a
class by themselves different from those not receiving the grant-Object
sought was boosting of entertainment facilities-The classification had nexus
with the object sought to be achieved
F The State of U.P. enacted the Uttar Pradesh Entertainments and Betting
Tax Act, 1979 introducing levy of entertainment tax on all payment for
admission to any entertainment including cinematographic exhibitions. The
State ofU.P., by a Government Order dated 17-09-1983. extended the scheme
of grant-in-aid for permanent cinema houses constructed within a specified
G period, subject to certain conditions. One of the main conditions was that the
grant-in-aid was admissible only to such cinema houses which had fixed their
maximum entrance rates at not more than Rs. 2.50 including taxes. By the
U.P. Cinemas and Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1989, Section 3A was
introduced in the Act providing for realisation of certain extra charge on the
admission fee on account of air-cooling/conditioning of the cinema hall. By
H 452
STATE v. KAMLA PALACE 453

the 1992 amendment, realisation of an extra charge on account of maintenance A
was also permitted which was raised substantially by the 1995 amendment.
Proviso to Section 3A of the Act, however, precluded the proprietors receiving
grant-in-aid/incentives from the Government from realising the said extra
charge during the period the aid is received. Classification of cinema houses
into those receiving aid and those not receiving aid for the purposes of B
realising maintenance charges was challenged by the respondent and others
before the High Court as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. A Division Bench of the High Court, vide judgment dated 10-07-1995,
held the said proviso to be ultra vires the Constitution on the ground that
the said classification had no ne~us with the purpose sought to be achieved.
However, another set of similar writ petitions came before another Division C
Bench of the High Court which dissented with the view of the earlier Division
Bench in its judgment. On this the matter was referred to the Full Bench
which also held the proviso as not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
After the full Bench decision, the appellant moved an application for review
of the judgment dated 10-07-1995 which was dismissed. Hence the present
appeal. D
The respondent contended that irrespective of the fact of receiving grant-
in-aid, the cinema houses required maintenance equally and therefore, the
classification was unreasonable and also did not in any way achieve the object
of boosting the maintenance of cinema houses. The appellant contended that
the classification was well-defined as the incenti,·e scheme was optional and
temporary for the purpose of encouraging permanent cinema houses in
particular localities identifiable by reference to population to statistics and
also it restricted the rate of admission fee as prescribed by the Government.
According to the appellant such cinema houses were clearly distinguishable
from those not receiving aid. F
Disposing the appeals, this Court

HELD: 1.1. At the point of time when the impugned provision was
enacted, that is in the year 1992, there existed two classes of cinema owners:
one, those who were receiving grant-in-aid under some incentive scheme G
enunciated by the State Government; and two, such cinema owners as were
not receiving such grant-in-aid. It will be seen that the grant-in-aid schemes
promulgated by the State Government were temporary schemes having a life
span of three to five years which extended incentive depending on the
population of the place where the cinema house was situated. The incentive
was available on a staggered scale depending on the size of population catered H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A to by the cinemas situated in the rural areas. The incentive was by way of
grant-in-aid equivalent to certain percentage of the quantum of entertainment
tax collected by the cinema owner for the State Government. As a condition
precedent to the entitlement for such grant-in-aid the cinema owners were
subjected to a disability of not charging the fee for admission beyond a ceiling
B i.e. Rs. 2.50, later on revised to Rs. 5. Such cinema owners formed a class
by themselves different and distinct from those cinema owners who were not
receiving any grant-in-aid under an incentive schemes and/or were free to
for admission without any restriction as to upper limit i.e. their fee for
admission to entertainment could be more than Rs. 2.50 or Rs. 5. Such
classification is clear, well-defined and real. The object sought to be achieved
C was to encom•age the cinema owners in boosting entertainment facilities
available to the people. This was achieved by providing grant-in-aid under an
incentive Scheme to one class of cinema owners and by permitting a recovery
of certain amount by way of charges for maintenance to such another class
of cinema owners as were not receiving any grant-in-aid. Thus it cannot be
said that the classification had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
D [460-D-H; 461-A]
1.2. The incentive schemes realising the grant-in-aid were optional.
There was no compulsion on the cinema owners to opt for the incentive scheme
and have the grant-in-aid released to them. Such option was available at the
commencement of the scheme and remained available throughout. Such of
E the cinema owners as felt that the fixation of Rs. 2.50 or Rs. 5 as a ce~ling
on fee for admission was not beneficial to them and they would stand to
benefit by opting out from the incentive scheme and availing the benefit of
recovering charges for maintenance conferred by the 1992 amendment and
they were always and at any time free to do so. [461-C-E]
F Kam/a Palace v. State of UP., AIR (1996) All 375 affirmed.

1.3. Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not prohibit reasonable
classification of persons, object and transactions by the Legislature for the
purpose of attaining specific ends. To satisfy the test of permissible
G classification, it must not be "arbitrary, artificial or evasive" but must be
raised on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable
relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Legislature. Laws relating
to economic activities or those in the field of taxation enjoy a greater latitude
than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion etc. Such
a legislation may not be struck down merely on account of crudities and
H inequities inasmuch as such legislation are designed to take care of complex
STATE v. KAMLA PALACE (R:C. LAHOTI, J.] 455

situations and complex problems which do not admit of solutions through any A
doctrinaire approach or straight-jacket formulas. [459-E-G)

Re. Special Courts Bill, [1979) 20 SCR 476 and RK. Garg v. Union
.... of India, [1981) 4 SCC 675, followed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 662of1997. B
WITH
C.A. Nos. 663/97, 664/97, 2563/97, 2150-57/97, 2159/97, 2179-2204/97,
4643/97, 8718/97 and SLP (C) No. 11464/98.

From the Judgment and order dated l 4. l l.1996 at the High Court of C
Allahabad in Review Application No. 21065 of 1996.

.. A.K. Goel, AAG., U.P., Kavin Gulati, N.P.S. Panwar, S.N. Bhat, Prasenjit
Keswani, Joseph Pookkat and Prashant Kumar for Appellants.

Ranjit Kumar and Ms. Abba R. Sharma for the Respondents.
D
In C.A. No. 2182/97 A.K. Ganguli, Shiva Pujan Singh, Ms. Niranjana
Singh, Goodwill Indeever and Sarat Chandra.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J. This order shall govern the disposal of a bunch of
appeals grouped into three and arising in the backdrop of events stated E
hereinafter.

The Uttar Pradesh Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (U.P. Act
No. 28 of 1979) was enacted and came into force in the State of U.P. on
August 16, 1981. It introduced the levy of the entertainment tax payable at
a certain percentage on all payments for admission to any entertainment.
0
F
'Entertainment' as defined in the interpretation clause includes cinematograph
exhibitions amongst others. With a view to encouraging cinema construction
the state of Uttar Pradesh extended a scheme of grant-in-aid for permanent
cinema houses constructed within a specified period through a Government
Order dated 17th September, 1983. Pennanent cinema houses constructed G
under the scheme depending on the population of the areas/towns wherein
they were constructed were allowed grant-in-aid equivalent to 100%, 75%,
50% respectively for the first, second and third year of construction in the
areas/places having the population of more than 20,000 but less than 1,00,000.
In the areas/places having population of less than 20,000 the amount of grant-
in-aid was equivalent to 100%, 75%, 50% respectively for the first two years, H

-l
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the third year and the fourth year of construction. There were a few conditions
attaching with the entitlement to the benefit of the grant-in-aid. The conditions
relevant for our purpose were: (1) that the grant-in-aid shall be admissible
only to such cinema houses which fixed their maximum entrance rates inclusive
of tax at not more than Rs. 2,50; (ii) that the District Magistrate shall permit
the grant-in-aid after providing the licence in the performa enclosed with the
B Government Order; and (iii) that the permission shall be effective after the
cinema owner signed the agreement contemplated by the scheme. The scheme
was extended from time to time with effect from 21st July, 1986, and 18th July,
1989. The phraseology and tenor of all such subsequent schemes is more or
less similar to the scheme of the year 1983 excepting that under the schemes ..
C of the years 1986 and 1989 the benefit was available to such permanent
cinema houses as fixed admissi9n rate at not exceeding Rs. 5.

The U.P. Cinemas and Taxation laws Amendment Act, 1989 (U.P. Act
No.12 of 1989) introduced Section 3-A in the body of the main Act which by
.
an overriding effect over other provisions of the Act authorised the proprietor
D of a centrally air-cooled or centrally airconditioned cinema to realise, subject
to prior permission of the District Magistrate, an extra charge of I 0 paisa and
25 paisa respectively over and above the admission fee during the period

E
commencing on the 15th day of March and ending on the 15th day of
September every year which amount was not to be taken into account for
calculating the entertainment tax if the same was spent for providing the air-
-
cooling or air-conditioning facility, as the case may be. The abovesaid Section
3A was further amended by Act No. 14 of 1992. Section 3A in its amended
form along with the proviso appended to sub-section (1), which proviso is
the bone of contention, is reproduced hereunder:-

p "[3-A. Extra charges for maintenance of cinema and] air-cooled
and air conditioned facility. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in this Act, the proprietor of a cinema may realise from the person
making payment for admission to an entertainment in such cinema, -

(a) an extra charge of [one rupee] which shall be utilised for
G maintenance of the cinema premises;

(b) in case of a centrally air-cooled or centrally air-conditioned
cinema a further extra charge of twenty five paisa and sixty paise for
air-cooling or air-conditioning facility respectively during the period
commencing o~ the fifteenth day of March in any year and ending on
H the fifteenth day of October next following:

j-
STATE v. KAMLA PALACE [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 457
Provided that the proprietor of a cinema receiving grant-in-aid from A
the State Government under any incentive scheme shall not be entitled
to realise extra charge under clause (a) during the period such grant-
in-aid is received by him.]

xxx xxx xxx
B
The amount of extra charge permitted for maintenance of the cinema
premises was 25 paisa as introduced by Act No. 14 of 1992. It was revised
to 1 rupee by U.P. Act No. 3 of 1995 with effect from 10.10.1994.

The validity of the amendment was challenged by a number of cinema
houses/cinema owners by filing several writ petitions. One such petition was C
filed by Karola Palace. The principal ground of challenge was that the proviso
appended to sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Act was discriminatory in
nature and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. A batch of writ petitions
led by the writ petition filed by Karola Palace was heard by a Division Bench
of the Allahabad High Court. By its judgment and order dated 10.7.1995 the
Division Bench declared the proviso to sub-section ( 1) of amended Section D
3A as ultra vires of the Constitution. Broadly stated the Division Bench
formed an opinion that the object sought to be achieved by clause {a) of sub-
section (1) of Section 3 A was to achieve maintenance of the cinema premises
by cinema owners who were finding it difficult to do so on account of serious
competitive threats posed by video parlours and other sources of entertainment. E
Inasmuch as all the cinema required maintenance without regard to the fact
whether they were receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or
not, the distinction sought to be drawn by the proviso between the cinemas
receiving grant-in-aid and the cinemas not so receiving grant-in-aid had no
nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved and hence fell foul of Article
14 of the Constitution. Civil Appeal No. 664/97 State of U.P. v. Kam/a Palace F
and 53 other appeals C.A. Nos. 2150-2157, 2159--2177 and 2179-2204/97 have
been preferred against the Division Bench judgment dated 10. 7.1995.

It appears that there were other writ petitions also which were not
disposed of by the common Division Bench judgment dated 10.7.1995. They G
came to be heard by another Division Bench of that High Court which formed
an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken in the Division Bench
judgment dated 10. 7.1995. Having recorded its dissension, the Division Bench
by its order dated 17 .8.1995 directed the matter to be placed before the Chief
Justice who was pleased to constitute a Full Bench to resolve the controversy.
The Full Bench heard the matters in the writ petition filed by Natraj Chabigrah, H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Sigra. By its judgment dated 22.3. I 996 (reported as AIR I 996 Allahabad 375)
the Full Bench overruled the Division Bench decision dated I 0. 7. I 995 in
Kam la Palace (supra). Civil Appeal No. 663/1997-Sushil Bhasin v. State o/U.P.
and C.A. Neis. 2563, 4643, 8718 of 1997 and SLP(C) No. 11464/1198 have been
filed by different cinema houses/cinema owners against the Full Bench
B judgment.
Emboldened by the Full Bench decision dated 22.3.1996 the State ofU.P.
moved and application for review of the judgment dated I 0. 7.1995 in the case
of Kam la Palace. The application for review was barred by time by 24 l days.
An application seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation
Act was also filed. The Division Bench which had decided the case of Karn la
c Palace heard the application for review as also the application under Section
S of the Limitation Act. By the order dated I 4.11. I 996 the Division Bench
dismissed the applications so filed fonning an opinion that neither a case for
condonation of delay was made out nor a case for exercising jurisdiction to
review was made out. C.A. No. 662/1997 has been preferred by the State of
·D U.P. putting in issue the order dated 14.11.1996.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in all the matters
analogously. The issue arising for decision is whether the proviso appended
to sub-section (I) of Section 3-A reproduced hereinabove suffers from the
vice of invidious discrimination by carving out an artificial classification by
E dividing the cinema houses into two based on the criterion whether they
receive or do not receive benefit of incentive scheme propounded by the
State Government and whether such classification has no nexus with the
object sought to be achieved.
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the cinema owners whether
F a cinema receives or does not receive grant-in-aid by way of relief in the
amount of entertainment tax does not make any ·difference so far as the
maintenance of cinema house is concerned. It cannot be said that a cinema
house receiving grant-in-aid requires no maintenance or lesser maintenance.
The proviso therefore brings into existence two classes of cinemas by drawing
an artificial dividing line. Both the types of cinemas need maintenance. The
G object sought to be achieved by beneficial provision incorporated in clause
(a) of sub-section (I) of Section 3-A is to boost the maintenance of cinema
houses. The classification sought to be provided by the proviso does not
fulfil the object sought to be achieved by the principal provision. The learned
Standing counsel for the State has on the other hand submitted that the
H distinction between cinemas receiving grant-in-aid under an incentive scheme
STATE v. KAMLA PALACE [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] ~59

of the State Government and the cinemas not so receiving the grant-in-aid is A
substantial and well-defined. The incentive scheme is optional and adopted
as a temporary measure by the State Government for encouraging permanent
cinema houses located in particular focalities indentifiable by reference to
population statistics of the previous census. The benefit conferred by the
, incentive scheme is conditional upon the cinema limiting its admission rate B
. inclusive of taxes to a maximum which was Rs. 2.50 initially, revised to Rs. 5
in the latter. schemes. Such cinema houses are clearly distinguishable from
those which do not take benefit of the incentive scheme either because they .
do not opt for it by entering into an agreement thereunder or because they
choose to appoint the rate of admission at above Rs.5. The cinemas falling·
in the later category are entitled to make an extra charge of 25 paise (later on C
revised to I rupee) which has to be utilised for maintenance of the cinema
premises.·

. We are of the opinion that. the challenge laid to the Constitutional
-validity of the proviso abovesaid is without any merit arid must fail. It was
rightly turned down by the Full Bench in its order dated 22.3.1996. The view D
of the law laken by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 10.7.1.9975 was
not a correct view of the law. The Division Bench decision dated 10.7.1995
was rightly overruled by the Full Bench by its decision dated 22.3'.1996. We
now proceed to examine validity of the rival contentions advanced before us.

Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable classification of persons, objects E
and transactions by the Legislature for the purpose of attaining specific ends.
To satisfy the ·test of permissible classification, it must not be "arbitrary,
artificial or evasive". but must be based on some real and substantial distinction
bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by
the Legislature. [See :-Re: SpeCial Court Bill, [1979) 20 SCR 476, 7 -judges . F
Bench; R.K. Garg v. Union ofIndia, [1981) 4 SCC 675, 5 -judges Bench.] It
was further held in R.K. Garg's case that laws relating to economic activities
or those in the field of taxation enjoy a greater latitude than laws touching
civil rights such as freedom of speech,' religion etc .. Such a legislation may
not be·· struck down merely on account of crudities and inequities inasmuch
as such legalisations are designed to take r.:are of complex situations and G
complex problems which do not admit of solutions through any doctrinaire
approach or straight-jacket formulas. Their Lordships quoted with approval
. _the observations made by Frank Furter,' J. In Morey v. Doud, (1957) 354 US
457- . .
•
"In the utilities, tax and economic regulations cases, there are good • H .
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A reasons for judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to legislative
judgment. The legislature after all has the affinnative responsibility.
The Courts have only the power to destroy, not to reconstruct. When
these are added to the complexity of economic regulation, the
uncertainly, the liability to error, the bewildering conflict of the experts,
and the number of times the judges have been overruled by events
B self-limitation can be seen to be the path to judicial wisdom and
institutional prestige and stability."

The Legislature gaining wisdom from historical facts, existing situations,
matters of common knowledge and practical problems and guided by
C considerations of policy must be given a free hand to devise classes to whom
to tax or not to tax, to whom to exempt or not to exempt and to whom to give
incentives and lay down the rates of taxation, .benefits or concessions. In the
field of taxation if the test of Article 14 is satisfied by generality of provisions
the Court would not substitute judicial wisdom for the legislative wisdom.

D In the case at hand it will be seen that at the point of time when the
impugned provision was enacted, that is in the year 1992, there existed two
classes of cinema owners: one, those who were receiving grant-in-aid under
some incentive scheme enunciated by the State Government; and two, such
cinema owners as were not receiving such grant-in-aid. It will be seen that
E the grant-in-aid schemes promulgated by the State Government were temporary
schemes having a life span of three to five years which extended incentive
depending on the population of the place where the cinema house was
situated. It can be said, as was the plea raised before the High Court and also
submitted by the learned Standing counsel for the State ofU.P. before us, that
the incentive was available on a staggered scale depending on the size of
F population catered !o by the cinemas situated in rural areas. The incentive
was by way of grant-in-aid equivalent to certain percentage of the quantum
of entertainment tax collected by the cinema owner for the State Government.
As a condition precedent to the entitlement for such grant-in-aid the cinema
owners were subjected to a disability of not charging the free for admission
G beyond a ceiling i.e. Rs. 2.50, later on revised to Rs.5. Such cinema owners
fonned a class by themselves different and distinct from those cinema owners
.who were not receiving any grant-in-aid under an incentive scheme and/or
were free to charge fee for admission without any restriction as to upper limit,
i.e., their fee for admission to eritertainment could be, more than Rs. 2.50 or
Rs. 5. Such classification is clear, well-defined and real. The object sought to
H be achieved was to encourage the cinema owners in boosting entertainment
STATE v. KAMLA PALACE [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 461
facilities available to the people. This was achieved by providing grant-in-aid A
under an incentive scheme to one class of cinema owners and by permitting
recovery of certain amount by way of charges for maintenance to such
another class of cinema owners as were not receiving any grant-in-aid. Thus
it cannot be said that the classification had no nexus with the object sought
to be achieved. The Full Bench has during the course of its judgment observed, B
and rightly in our opinion, that if the benefit conferred by the impugned
amendment was made general, i.e., available to all the cinema owners then the
cinema owners operating in rural area would have secured double benefit-one
by way of grant-in-aid and other by way of recovering maintenance charges
from the cinema-goers exempt from payment of entertainment tax and there is
nothing wrong in the Legislature having chosen not to confer such double C
benefit on the cinema owners already enjoying benefit of an incentive scheme
of the State Government. Moreover, it cannot be lost sight of that the incentive
schemes releasing the grant-in-aid were optional. There was no compulsion
on the cinema owners to opt for the incentive scheme and have grant-in-aid
released to them. Such option was available at the commencement of the
scheme and remained available throughout. Such of the cinema owners as felt D
that the fixation of Rs. 2.50 or Rs.5 as a ceiling on fee for admission was not
beneficial to them and they would stand to benefit by opting out from the
incentive scheme and availing the benefit of recovering charges for
maintenance conferred by the 1992 amendment were always and at any time
free to do so. E

For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the Division Bench
was not right in passing the order dated 10. 7.1995 striking down the amendment
impugned before it. The Full Bench of the High Court has rightly upheld the
vires of the impugned amendment in its order dated 17.8.1995. Civil Appeal
No. 664/97 State of UP. v. Kam/a Palace and 53 other appeals, i.e., C.A. Nos. F
2150-2157, 2159-2177 & 2179-2204/1997 are allowed. The judgment dated
17. 7.1995 passed by the Division Bench allowing the writ petitions is set
aside. C.A. No. 663/97-Sushil Bhasin v. State of UP. & C.A. Nos. 2563, 4643,
8718/1997 and SLP(C) No. 11464/1998 are dismissed. The judgment of the Full
Bench dated 22.3.1996 (reported as AIR 1996 Allahabad 375) is confirmed. G
C.A. No. 662/1997 preferred against the order of the Division Bench dated
14.11.1996 rejecting the application for review of the order dated 10.7.1995 is
rendered redundant and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as
to the costs in any of the appeals.

Before parting we would like to make it clear that some of the cinema H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A owners have collected the amount of maintenance charges under the 1992
amendment under the interim orders passed by the High Court. They have not
paid entertainment tax thereon and continued to retain the amount during the
pendency of these appeals/SLPs. In some of the cases interim orders have
been passed by this Court also. However, as stated during the course of
hearing, accounts/statements of such collections have been maintained and
B also verified from time to time by the authorities concerned. All interim orders
stand vacated. The consequences as provided by law in the matter of liability
to pay entertainment tax and recovery thereof shall follow.

R.C.K. Appeals allowed/dismissed and
petition dismissed.