AMRISH DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Cable Operator around 1995. The Officer of respondent No. 3 visited the premises of the petitioner on 24. 3. 1995 and found a number of irregularities. It was also found that though the petitioner accounted for 177 connections, in fact, he had supplied 275 connections. The liability of the petitioner was, therefore, assessed at Rs. 49,500/- and penalty of 150% of the said amount was imposed. Thereupon the petitioner made a representation and by order dated 13. 9. 1995 the respondent authority assessed the tax amount payable by the petitioner at Rs. 43,680/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 65,520/- under Section 9 (3) of the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act. The petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 1,09,200/ -. The petitioner therefore approached this Court with this petition making following prayers :- (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned orders at Annexures A, C and D passed by the respondents. (B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, implementation, operation and execution of the impugned orders at Annexure A, C and D may kindly be stayed. (C) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (B) above may kindly be granted.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he in fact had only 177 connections. It is also the case of the petitioner that while making the assessment the respondent authority did not account for Rs. 20,085/- paid by the petitioner by way of tax during the period in question. However, latter on the authority has accepted the case of the petitioner and has given credit for the said amount calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 22,820/- as the tax payable by communication dated 13. 8. 1997.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner submitted that 150% is the highest amount of penalty that can be imposed. The respondent authorities have imposed the fullest penalty. In absence of any exceptional circumstances such extreme penalty is disproportionate to the lapse on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, the amount of penalty may be reduced.