G R SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Lucknow recommending that the conviction of G.R. Sharma under Section 9(2) of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act No. VIII of 1937 for alleged breach of Rule 19 of the Rules framed under the Act be set aside. Parties have been heard. The facts of the case are not in dispute. G.R. Sharma is a licensee and the proprietor of a cinema house known as Prakash Talkies. He is liable to pay entertainment tax to the Government. The Additional District Magistrate of Lucknow filed a complaint against him alleging that he had failed to deposit the entertainment tax amounting to Rs. 411/3/6 for the week ending March 6, 1355, on March 7, (sic), as required by Rule 19 and the instructions issued thereunder. He therefore alleged that G.R. Sharma by contravening Rule 19 was liable to punishment Under Section 9(2) of the Entertainment and Betting Tax Act. G.R. Sharma was tried summarily for the offence. He pleaded that he could not pay the amount on the 7th of March as it was a holiday. He paid the amount on the 11th of March 1955, the treasury having been opened on that date after the Holi holidays. The magistrate did not record any evidence. He held that if the applicant had paid the money into the treasury on the 11th of March, he would not have committed any offence. He, however, came to the conclusion that G.R. Sharma had submitted challan for the amount in the treasury on the 11th of March, 1955 but had actually deposited the amount in the Imperial Bank on the 14th of March, 1955 and since G.R. Sharma could not explain the delay of the intervening three days there was a technical offence for which the learned Magistrate registered a warning Under Section 9(2) of the Act against G.R. Sharma.

(2.) A perusal of Rule 19 of the Rules framed under the Entertainment and Betting Tax Act shows that according to that Rule

(3.) Upon proper computation as well there does not seem to have been any infraction f Rule 19 of the Rules. The explanation of the applicant about the delay in the deposit of the amount was supported by documents filed on the record though some of those documents were not formally proved. The deposit for all practical purposes had been made on the 11th of March, 1955 and even if time is reckoned from the 1st of March, 1955, on which date the tax of that date fell due the payment made on the 11th of March, 1955 was certainly within time. Consequently the conviction of G.R. Sharma Under Section 9(2) of the Act and a sentence of warning cannot be supported. The reference is accepted and the conviction and sentence are set aside.