Is a film actor equal to a folk or a theatre artiste so as to demand Service tax exemptions for his earnings? No, ruled the Madras high court on Wednesday, refusing to grant exemptions for film actor Siddharth Suryanarayan who wanted to be treated on a par with theatre artistes and given tax cuts. 

"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," ruled the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M M Sundresh. 

Siddharth said his job involved skills to display different kinds of emotions, dialogue delivery skills and acting characters specified by a film director. 

"These skills are not different from [those of] an actor who performs with similar skills in theatre or drama," the Boys fame star said, assailing a June 20, 2012 notification of the Centre exempting performing artistes or folk or classical art forms of music, dance or theatre from the liability paying service tax under Section 66 B of the Finance Act, 1994. 

Noting that the same benefits wer not extended to other performing artistes such as film actors, Siddharth said the notification was arbitrary and discriminatory and there was no reasonable basis for such a classification. 

Noting that the distinction is based on valid differentia between two categories -- film artistes and native artistes and culture in theatre form, the Centre said glaringly distinct factors pointed out the huge expenditure as well as the earnings of film artistes. 

This is distinct from native art and culture, which required protection as it is more in the nature of a non-profit activity. Protection to cultural and educational rights and preserving the rich heritage of composite culture of the nation is a constitutional mandate under Article 29, the Centre said. 

Describing the PIL as misconceived and without any merit, the bench said: "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. It is towards the object of Article 229 of the Constitution that a salutary 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." 

Also, taxation statutes have to be dealt with due deference to the legislative intent, the judges said, adding: "What is reasonable is a question of practical details and variety of factors which the court would be reluctant and ill-equipped to investigate." 

They then dismissed the petition filed by the actor. Service Tax - Times of India.