LAWS(MAD)-2004-7-93

MURUGAN THEATRE Vs. ENTERTAINMENT TAX OFFICER DCTO

Decided On July 16, 2004
SRI MURUGAN THEATRE Appellant
V/S
ENTERTAINMENT TAX OFFICER (DCTO) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the second respondent in D.Dis JJ2/89973/96 and 89974/96 dated 17.2.1997 confirming the order of the first respondent in its E.T.No.1/85-86/92-93 dated 13.11.1995.

(2.) THE petitioners run a Cinema THEatre. THEy are required to pay Entertainment Tax under the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act. Permit in Form IV under the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939 has been issued to them. As per the procedure, the petitioners have to submit weekly returns reporting the payments for each class during the week with proof of payment of tax on such collections. THE petitioners claim that they have submitted such weekly returns without any default. While the matter stood thus, the petitioners were served with show cause notice purporting to be under 7-B of the Act proposing to levy tax and penalty for the year 1992-93. In the said show cause notice, it was indicated that on a few occasions inspections have been made and it was found that some persons had been admitted without ticket or free pass and on the basis of such non-payment of dues it was proposed to levy tax and impose penalty by applying the procedure of best judgment assessment for the whole year. An objection was filed on behalf of the petitioners. However, orders were passed confirming the proposal to levy tax and penalty. Such order having been confirmed in appeal and revision, the writ petition has been filed.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid analysis, the contention of the petitioners is to the effect that, since weekly returns have been filed, the authorities should have examined as to whether the returns for a particular period was correct and complete and if on such examination it was found that the return was incomplete or incorrect, the necessity making best judgment assessment would have arisen as contemplated under Section 7-A(3).