A.P. VASUDEVAN Vs. STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE FOOD PRODUCTION AND COMMERCIAL TAXES, BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was running a touring talkies under the name and style of Karthikeyan Touring Talkies at Sankari. On 27th December, 1968, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Entertainments Tax Squad) arranged for the test purchase of one male floor ticket and one male bench ticket for the second, show on 27th December, 1968 in the theatre through two persons, one M.S. Vasudevan and one K.V. Palanimalai, last grade government servants, and inspected on 28th December, 1968 at 8 -45 p.m. when the first show was in progress. During the inspection it was found that two tickets bearing Nos. 28743 and 13426 which were issued on the previous day were found to be reissued and were in possession of two spectators. Immediately statements were taken from the spectators who were in possession of the two tickets and also from the Petitioner. In view of the fact that the tickets bearing same numbers were reissued on subsequent date, the inspecting officer felt that the Petitioner has been in the habit of issuing duplicate tickets and suppressing the same with a view to evade payment of entertainment tax. Therefore the matter was referred to the Entertainments Tax Officer, Tiruchengode who issued a notice dated 1st February, 1969 to the Petitioner calling upon him to appear for an enquiry regarding the inspection of the theatre on 28th December, 1968. After enquiry the Entertainments Tax Officer issued a notice to the Petitioner to show cause why his returns for the weeks ending from 3rd November, 1968 to 29th December, 1968, should not be rejected and assessments made on best judgment basis for those weeks and why penalty should not also be levied. After considering the objections filed by the Petitioner the Entertainments Officer passed 18 independent order on 7th July, 1969 for the said 9 weeks both under the Entertainments Tax Act and under the Tamil Nadu Local Authorities Finance Act by including the tax escaped under the parallel set of tickets sold by the proprietor. He also levied penalty for all the weeks. The Petitioner filed 18 appeals against the 18 orders of the Entertainments Tax Officer, dated 7th July, 1969 which were however dismissed on 12th November, 1969. The Petitioner thereafter preferred 18 revision petitions to the Deputy Commissioner, Coimbatore which also failed. Subsequently the Petitioner preferred 18 revision petitions to the Commissions (Entertainments Tax), the Respondent herein. The Commissioner dismissed all the revision petitions by a common order dated 14th November, 1972. In this writ petition the Petitioner has questioned the validity of the said common order relating to 9 independent orders under the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act and another 9 independent orders under the Tamil Nadu Local Authorities Finance Act.

(2.) In this writ petition the Petitioner has contended that the fact that two duplicate tickets were found on a particular day will not lead to the assumption that he has been in the habit of issuing duplicate tickets and ending tax for about 9 weeks especially when there is no material to indicate that in all the earlier weeks he had issued duplicate tickets. The Petitioner's case is that if, at all, there can be a revision of assessment only for the week during which the inspection took place and not for the earlier weeks.

(3.) From the counter -affidavit it is seen that the assessing authority proceeded on the basis that having regard to the numbers which are found in the duplicate tickets detected at the time of inspection it can fairly be assumed that the entire series from 1 upto the number found in the duplicate ticket should have been utilized by the Petitioner during the earlier weeks. Therefore it is only from an assumption or inference that there has been an escapement of tax in the earlier weeks also, the revision of assessment for the earlier weeks have been made. Having regard to the fact that if a theatre owner wants to use duplicate tickets from a particular day or a week he can do so only using the number which are found in the original tickets, merely because duplicate tickets contained certain numbers one cannot go backwards from that number upto 1 and say that the Petitioner has actually evaded tax in the earliest weeks by the use of duplicate tickets. It is not therefore possible to agree with the assumption made by the authorities that the Petitioner had actually used duplicate tickets in the earlier weeks. Though on this ground the Petitioner is entitled to succeed in relation to the revision of assessments for the earlier weeks, he cannot be granted the relief except for the first week ending 3rd November, 1968 as I am upholding the preliminary objections taken by the State as to the maintainability of a single writ petition challenging the validity of as many as 18 independent orders of assessment.