DARPAN CINEMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenge the legality and validity of decision of respondent authorities asking petitioner No. 1 to pay entertainment tax at the rate of Rs. 2 244 per week instead of Rs. 1 48 per week. The petitioners also challenge the legality and validity of orders and notices issued in this behalf by respondents herein. The petitioners also pray that the respondents be restrained from recovering any amount from the petitioners in excess of Rs. 1 48 per week from 3/03/1989 to 31/03/1991

(2.) Petitioner No. 1-Darpan Cinema is a partnership firm. Petitioner No. 2 is a partner thereof. Petitioners firm was running a cinema in the name of Darpan Cinema. The firm was constituted by partnership deed dated 12/07/1972 By order dated 28/02/1989 the firm obtained permission to pay entertainment tax in lump sum. In the permission so granted amount of Rs. 1 48 was written as the amount of tax to be paid per week. This was a calculation mistake. Therefore by notice dated 13/02/1991 the Mamlatdar Anand informed petitioner No. 1 about the calculation mistake and asked the petitioners to pay the difference of amount of tax calculating the same on the basis of Rs. 2 244 per week instead of Rs. 1 48 per week. Since the difference of amount which arose on account of calculation mistake as pointed out was not paid notice dated 14/02/1992 was issued by the Mamlatdar. By this notice petitioner No. 1 firm was called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 1 33 997 (Rupees one lac thirty-three thousand nine hundred ninety-seven). The petitioners preferred appeal before the District Magistrate & Entertainment Tax Collector Kheda. In appeal despite several adjournments being granted and several opportunities having been afforded neither the appellants nor their advocate nor any one on behalf of the appellants remained present. Hence the District Magistrate Kheda decided the appeal on merits and dismissed the same by order dated 18/06/1992 Petitioner No. 1-firm preferred revision before the Commissioner of Entertainment Tax. The revision was preferred by petitioner No. 1 and its partner Shri Dattubhai Manibhai Patel who represented firm as partner of the firm. The Commissioner in his order dated 14/12/1992 observed as follows: ***

(3.) Thus the liability was accepted by the firm. Only request for instalment was made. The Commissioner of Entertainment Tax held that the request for instalment be made to the Collector. With these observations the revision application has been rejected by order dated 14/12/1992 Thereafter as the firm approached the Collector Kheda for instalments the Collector determined the amount of instalments as Rs. 30 0 per month and stated that the last instalment of Rs. 13 997 be paid as fifth instalment. Thus total amount of Rs. 1 33 997 was divided into five instalments. Even after the determination of the instalments the amount was not paid. Therefore the Mamlatdar issued notice dated 4/03/1992