SHOT `N POT Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.12.2000, Annexure-4 to the petition, by which demand of entertainment tax has been made from the petitioner.

(2.) In paragraph 2 of the petition, it is alleged that a survey was made by the Senior Entertainment Inspector, Meerut and some other persons and it was found that petitioner had installed three tables for the purposes of playing skill game (Billiards. Snooker, etc.) and offering the same to the players at the rate of Rs. 60 per hour. No records pertaining to income and expenditure were shown to the Entertainment Inspector when demanded. A notice dated 20.5.2000 was thereupon issued by the A.D.M. City, Meerut, to the petitioner, in which above fact was stated and it was further stated that the aforesaid skill game was said to have started from December, 1999 and was being played every day from 10.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. It was alleged in the notice that the aforesaid game comes within the definition of Section 2 (g) of U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979, for which petitioner is liable to pay Entertainment Tax at the rate of 30% of the amount charged. A true copy of the notice dated 20.5.2000 is Annexure-1 to the petition.

(3.) The petitioner replied to the notice alleging that he was not liable to pay Entertainment Tax. He admitted that he had taken the premises on monthly rent of cost Rs. 10,000 from December. 1999 to October, 2000, wherein he had provided tables for the purposes of playing skill game and Billiards and that the playing time was from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. A true copy of the petitioner's reply is Annexure-2 to the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter dated 5.1.2001, wherein he stated that he had stopped the activity. A true copy of the said letter is Annexure-3 to the petition. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 29.12.2001 was passed, vide Annexurc-4 to the petition, by which Entertainment Tax and penalty was imposed on the petitioner.