PRADEEP AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of six writ petitions raises a common question for consideration whether to take benefit of the compounded payment within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (briefly, 'the Act') it is necessary for the petitioners to declare four shows or the number of shows which the petitioners or some of them had organised as on 1-5-1989.

(2.) All these petitions were heard together. As counter-affidavit was filed only in Writ Petition No. 834 of 1993, that was not sent for and was heard with the consent of the parties along with other writ petitions, which were already listed. The Counsel for the parties have agreed that the question being common in all these writ petitions, the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 834 of 1993 be read to decide all the writ petitions.

(3.) No purpose will be served by reproducing the facts of each and every writ petition but it will suffice if the facts of only writ Petition No. 34 of 1993, in which counter-affidavit has been filed, are reproduced. The Writ Petition No. 834 of 1993 is, therefore, treated to be the leading writ petition and reference hereinafter will be made only with regard to the paper book of this writ petition.