ASHWINKUMAR KESHAORAO NASHINE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Panpaliya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Khubalkar, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that at the relevant time, the petitioner was running a Video Parlour at Sakoli, District -Bhandara. The Petitioner received a Show-cause-Notice, whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay Entertainment Duty for the months; October to December, 1985. The petitioner filed his reply to the Show-cause-Notice before the Collector, Bhandara, and he was heard by the Collector, Bhandara on 12th august, 1988. However, the Collector did not pass an order for a considerable period thereafter and rendered the Order on 20th august, 1989, i. e. , almost one year after the matter was heard by the respondent no. 3-Collector, Bhandara. The learned counsel contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal and others Vs. Anupkumar and others [ (2003)1 SCC 430], the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the Demand notice, dated 3rd February, 1990, issued by the respondents based on the above referred assessment Order is also not sustainable-in-law.

(3.) ASSTT. Govt. Pleader does not dispute the factual aspects of the matter. However, he states that merely because there is a delay in passing the order by respondent no. 3, the same is not a sufficient ground to declare the order null and void or unsustainable-in-law.