RAMESHCHANDRA K KADIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ -petitioner, an owner of a cinema,

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition may be summarised thus:

(3.) MR . M.B. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned orders under challenge are erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. According to Mr. Gandhi, the authorities below have discriminated the petitioner, inasmuch as identically situated persons running such cinema house have been dealt with very lightly by imposing penalty of a very meager amount. According to Mr. Gandhi, under Section 9(3) of the Act, penalty can be imposed only after the re -assessment is made and not before re -assessment. Sub -section (3) of Section 9 of the Act clearly states that in making any assessment or re -assessment under sub -section (1) as the Prescribed Officer may, if he satisfied that due to wilful mis -statement or suppression of fact by the proprietor the tax has not been levied or has been levied at a lower rate than the rate at which it is leviable, direct the proprietor to pay an addition to the tax assessment or re -assessment under Section 9(1) and the proviso to sub -section (3) clearly states that no penalty under this Section shall be imposed unless the proprietor affected is being given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such imposition.