PERIASWAMY Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Writ Petition No. 4259 of 1965, V. Periaswamy, who was assessed to tax under the Madras Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, for the weeks ending 13th July, 1965 to 27th July, 1965 prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Writ Petition N0.4260 of 1965, the same Periaswamy prays for the issue of a writ of Prohibition restraining the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavani, from taking any proceedings for compounding the offence, or prosecution in lieu of composition in respect of the returns relating to the entertainment tax for the period 13th July, 1965 to 27th July, 1965.

(2.) THE circumstances which have led to the filing of these writ petitions as revealed in the affidavits filed by the petitioner are briefly the following : The petitioner in accordance with Section 7 -A of the Madras Entertainments Tax Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act, regularly submitted weekly returns of entertainment tax for the aforesaid period and the respondent, the assessing authority under the Act, accepted the returns and made an assessment on the basis of the returns. Subsequently, the respondent and the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer raided the petitioner's cinema house at Guruvareddiyur and it was alleged that in the course of the raid, a certain diary book and some slips were recovered from the petitioner. This diary book and the slips were alleged to contain figures which would provide evidence for the collections of money at the petitioner's cinema theatre and which were not reflected in his returns. The petitioner was questioned on 2nd August, 1965 and his statement was recorded. Relying upon the data alleged to have been discovered in the above manner, the respondent made a re -assessment in respect of the returns for the weeks mentioned above. He was also given a notice to pay the compounding fee of Rs. 500 in lieu of prosecution, because he had suppressed the true figures in the returns submitted by him for the purpose of levy of entertainment tax.

(3.) TAKING up the first point, though the objection about the legality of a revision of assessment in similar cases on the ground that the statute as well as the rules did not contain specific provisions for the purpose could have been maintained at an earlier stage, at the present moment, after the issue of the amendment in Section 7 -B of the Act by Madras Act XX of 1966, and the Rules framed thereunder, the objection about the absence of a power to re -assess is no longer sustainable. Section 7 -B as amended by Act XX of 1966 is in two parts. Section 7 -B(1) with which we are now concerned read thus;