ST - Theatre Artist Vs Movie Artist - Writ Petition challenging exemption given to Theatre Artists under Notification No 25/2012 as discriminatory - Petition has no merit: HC

ST - Theatre Artist Vs Movie Artist - Writ Petition challenging exemption given to Theatre Artists under Notification No 25/2012 as discriminatory - Petition has no merit: HC

Income Tax Department

CHENNAI : THE petitioner is a movie star and has filed a writ petition seeking to assail the notification No.25/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012 providing for exemption in respect of services provided

by performing artist in folk or classical art forms of music, dance or theatre from the liability towards service tax. This notification is assailed on the ground that it is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the same benefit is not extended to other performing artistes namely film actors. The petitioner submitted that his job involves skills to display different kinds of emotions, dialogue delivery skills and acting characters specified by film Director. These skills are stated to be not different from an actor who performs with similar skills in theatre or drama.

The plea is that the impugned notification is arbitrary and discriminatory as it extends only to performing artistes in theatre and drama and not artistes in films. The submission is that there is no reasonable basis behind such a classification.

Revenue submitted that the difference is based on the valid differentia between two categories - (i) film artistes and (ii) native artistes and culture in theatre form. In fact, one of the glaringly distinct factors pointed out is the huge expenditure involved as well as the earnings qua film artistes, as observed in AGS Entertainment Private Ltd., v. Union of India and two others - 2013-TIOL-521-HC-MAD-ST. This is distinct from native art and culture and the requirement to protect the same being more in the nature of a non-profit activity. This is in furtherance of Article 29 of the Constitution of India seeking to give protection to cultural and educational rights and by preserving the rich heritage of composite culture.

After hearing both sides and referring to the ratio of judgements in State of U.P. v. Kamla Palace reported in (2000)1 SCC 557 and Aashirwad Films v. Union of India reported in (2007) 6 SCC 624, the High Court held:

The above Judgments clearly establish, that taxation statutes have to be dealt with on a different plank with due deference to the legislative intent. Much latitude is allowed to the State for classification upon a reasonable basis, and what is reasonable is a question of practical details and variety of factors which the Court would be reluctant and ill-equipped to investigate.

It is in the aforesaid context of a taxing statute that the principles of Article 14 of Constitution of India are sought to be applied to claim relief by the writ petitioner, while, in our view, the two categories are clearly different and distinguishable and cannot be treated at parity. The mere fact that there is an element of drama or acting both in case of theatre and in case of films does not mean that the two activities are identical, taking into consideration the circumstances in which films are made and theatre is performed. In fact we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner would perform at the rates at which theatre artistes perform. It is towards the object of Article 229 of the Constitution of India that a salutory endeavour has been made to give support to native art and culture and encourage them as they suffer from financial constraints. This is not the position of films.

Accordingly, the Court held the petition as completely misconceived and dismissed the same.