SRIVEERABHADRA TOURING TALKIES GOLLAPROTA EAST GODAVARY DISTRICT Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER EAST GODAVARY DISTRICT KAKINADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 6th November, 1975 passed by our learned brother, Gangadhara Rao, J., dismissing W.P. No. 5450 of 1975.

(2.) The appellant runs a cinema theatre in Gollaprole village in East Godavari district. The cinema the was inspected by the Revenue Divisional Officer accompanied by the District Supply Officer, Kakinada on 22nd September, 1975 at about 5 P.M. The Revenue Divisional Officer and the accompanying officer found that the Manager was using the duplicate faked seal of the Entertainment Tax Officer on the tickets and was carrying on clandestine business and as such was evadir.g payment of entertainment tax. The two officers seized the tickets and other records and reported the matter to the District Revenue Officer, East Godavari. The District Revenue Officer issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under the Andhra Pradesh Entertainmer.ts Tax Act and as such had also contravened the provisions of condition 12, clause 46 of the licence granted to him under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and the Rules framed there under and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why his licence should not be revoked. In answer to this notice, the appellant submitted his explanation and appeared in. person before the District Revenue Officer. He represented that the irregularities were committed by the Manager and he has dismissed him from service and prayed that he may be excused. The District Revenue Officer held an enquiry and finally found that the appellant had contravened the provisions of condition 12 clause (46) of the licence granted to him as he was using the faked seal of the Commercial Taxes Department to evade the tax due to the Government. He therefore cancelled the licence of the appellant. It is stated by Mr. Dasaratha Rama Reddy that the appellant had also preferred an appeal to the appellateauthority under the Cinemas (Regulation) Act and that the appeal is still pending. The appellant also preferred the writ petition out of which the writ appeal arises.

(3.) Mr. Dasaratha Rama Reddy advanced two arguments before the learned single Judge viz., that the licensing authority had no jurisdiction to cancel the licence on coming to the conclusion that the licensee has contravened the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act. What the learned Counsel contends is that the licensing authority can only cancel the license if the licensee is convicted under section 7 of the Cinematograph Act or section 9 of the Cinemas (Regulations) Act or when he is found guilty of committing an offence contrary to the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act by the Entertainment Tax Authorities. He therefore submits that the District Revenue Officer, who is the licensing authority had no jurisdiction to cancel or revoke that licence on the ground that the licensee has committed the offence punishable under the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act. The next contention that was advanced before the learned Judge was that the question has to be determined only by the Entertainments Tax Authorities and until the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer gives a finding the District Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to pass orders under section 10 of the Cinemas (Regulations) Act. These two arguments did not find favour with the learned Judge. He therefore dismissed the writ petition.