The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam upheld the order of an expert committee saying that the movie “I” cannot be granted entertainment tax exemption as the name does not fit into the parameters set for having a Tamil name which is the criteria for exemption.

In the matter at hand a petition was filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings related to the Tamil film “I” relating to an exemption from paying entertainment tax. The order under challenge had rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for the grant of tax exemption for the movie.

The petitioner had submitted an application for granting exemption for paying entertainment tax after producing the movie as the movie was named in Tamil language. The application was considered by the competent authorities and was rejected on the ground that the name of the movie does not fit the parameters fixed for the Tamil name as per the government order and therefore the petitioner is held to not be entitled to get exemption from payment of entertainment tax.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the name of the movie can be considered as exclamation and it conveys a definite meaning and that the order of the authorities is erroneous and the petitioner is entitled for exemption.

It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable in the view of the fact that the tax exemption was given to the theatre owners and not to the distributors and hence the petitioner being the distributor is not entitled to the exemption. It was further submitted that the government issued orders granting exemption to the films with tamil titles and an expert committee was formed to ensure if the title is really in Tamil / Telegu or otherwise. The committed had gone into the merits and demerits of the claim set out by the petitioner along with other applications and had taken a decision on the petitioner’s movie and held that it cannot be considered as a tamil title. Resultantly the application filed by the petitioner was rejected.

The high court observed that the Expert Committee constituted had gone into the merits of the case of the petitioner, so as to find out, whether the letter "I" has been used in order to seek exemption from Entertainment tax or it conveys Tamil title within the meaning of the Government policy for grant of exemption from payment of Entertainment tax. The Expert Committee considered the contents in the movie and finally formed an opinion that the letter "I" named for the petitioner's film cannot be considered as Tamil title for extending the benefit of exemption from payment of Entertainment tax.

The bench noted that the opinion of the Expert body is final and the High Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily cannot interfere with the opinion of the Expert Body. If the opinion of the Expert Committee is tainted with the allegation of mala fides or directly in violation of the Statutory provisions or the scheme or the policy, then alone, the High Court can interfere with such opinion, but not otherwise.

The court did not find any infirmity in the order of the expert body and hence dismissed the petition.

CASE: G. Sundararajan v. The Secretary And Ors

W.P. NO. 6449 OF 2015