D D IRANI Vs. ENTERTAINMENT TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the proprietrix of Tirandaz Talkies, Gulbarga, where she has been carrying on the business of exhibition of cinematograph shows. In these petitions she has questioned the validity of the orders of assessment passed under sub-sec. (2) of S. 6A of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of 100 weeks. The impugned orders of assessment are similar except with regard to the particulars of the period and the tax assessed and demanded. The prescribed authority has determined the liability of the petitioner in the said orders of assessment on the basis of the returns filed on her behalf and also issued notices of demand to the petitioner.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said impugned orders of assessment and the notices of demand the petitioner has filed these writ petitions It is alleged by the petitioner that she had filed the returns as required by Rule 29-E (1) of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, before the assessing authority from time to time enclosing with the returns receipted challans' on which the local treasury had acknowledged that the sums mentioned therein had been remitted to the treasury. But no action to assess the petitioner under the Act as required under sub-sec (2) of Section. 6A was taken for a long time apparently for the reason that the authority concerned proceeded on the basis that the amounts mentioned in the receipted challaps' enclosed by the petitioner with the returns were genuine. It would appear that it came to the notice of the assessing authority after a lapse of a number of year that there were no credit entries in the accounts of the treasury corresponding to the challans which the petitioner had enclosed with her returns and that in fact no payment had been made as stated in the returns filed by the petitioner. Immediately thereafter the assessing authority passed orders of assessment under S. 6-A (3) of the Act. They were challenged by the petitioner in certain writ petitions filed by her earlier. In the course of the hearing of the said writ petitions it was urged on behalf of the State Government that the impugned orders of assessment were made under sub-sec. (2) of S. 6A of the Act. The Court, however, proceeded to set aside the orders of assessment PS it was of the opinion that certain parts of sub- rules. (2) and (3) of Rule 29-E of the Rules were invalid. Liberty was however reserved to the authority to make fresh orders of assessment (vide Doulatabai Dinshaw Irani v. The Entertainment Tax Officer (1974) 1 KarLJ . 171. Thereafter the authority passed fresh orders of assessment and issued notices of demand which are impugned in these petitions.

(3.) In order to understand the contentions of Sri K. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer tc the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Under S. 3 of the Act entertainment tax is levied at the rates mentioned therein on the proprietor providing an entertainment. S. 6A which was introduced by Act 14 of 1966 provides for filing of the returns by the proprietor of an entertainment and also for the assessment of his liability. It reaods thus: Return.- (1) Every proprietor of an entertainment shall submit such returns relating to complimentary tickets and to payments for admissions, to such authority, in such manner and within such periods, as may be prescribed. (2) If the prescribed authority is satisfied that any return submitted under sub-sec. (1) is correct and complete, it shall assess the proprietor on the basis thereof. (3) If no return is submitted by the proprietor of the entertainment under sub-sec. (1) before the date prescribed or if the return submitted by him appears to the prescribed authority to be incorrect or incomplete, the prescribed authority shall, after making such enquiry as it considers necessary, determine the tax due under sections 3, 3A and 4, and assess the proprietor to the best of its judgment: Provided that before taking action under this sub-section, the proprietor shall be given a reasonable opportunity of proving the correct ness and completeness of any return submitted by him or that no return was due from him.