M HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. SAJJA VENUGOPAL RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Chirala to quash all further proceedings in C.C. No. 14/89 on the file of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala, Prakasam District.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the 1st respondent herein filed a complaint stating therein that he is the Managing Partner of the "Jayalakshmi Talkies, Vetapalem" doing business in exhibiting cinemas; that the petitioner herein was the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer having his office at Chirala and collecting entertainment tax over all the cinema theatres at Chirala and Vetapalem; that the 1st respondent herein fell in arrears pertaining to the year 1986-87 of the entertainment tax to the Government; that for the non-payment of the tax, the petitioner herein filed a complaint in S.T.C. No. 81/86 against the 1st respondent (A-3) and two others (A-1 and A-2) on the file of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala; that in that case, A-1 was acquitted and A-2 and A-3 were convicted directing to pay a fine of Rupees 1,000/- each and in default to suffer S.I. for six months and further directing to pay the tax that remained unpaid; that against that judgement, the 1st respondent herein preferred Crl. A. No. 130/88 and also Crl. M.P. No. 1133/88 before the Sessions Judge, Ongole and the learned Sessions Judge by his order in Crl. M.P. No. 1133/88 dt. 4-10-1988 suspended the order of the Magistrate pending disposal of the appeal; that later, the petitioner herein entered into the premises of the respondent on 14-1-1988 and seized lenses, wooden benches and folding chairs of the theatre. This act is alleged to have been done with ulterior motive to harass the respondent without any manner of right by disobeying the order of the Court therefore the respondent filed a complaint which complaint was taken on file by the Court below and on an application filed by the respondent herein, appointed a Commissioner for search and seizure of the said articles from the petitioner's office. Against that, the petitioner filed an application for return of the articles contending that the articles were seized as the respondent did not pay the arrears and that the seizure was made in course of discharge of his official duty. But the Court below dismissed the application. Hence, this petition is filed to quash the main proceedings as continuing the same amounts to abuse of the process of the court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer appointed under the Revenue Recovery Act by virtue of the Notification in Re. E1. 7869/84 dt. 28-8-1984 issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Ongole. Therefore, he was authorised to recover the taxes by attaching and seizing the articles of the defaulters as per the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. In pursuance of such power, the petitioner went and seized the articles from the theatre, as admittedly, the arrears of tax were not paid by the respondent. The seizure was made in the course of discharging his official duty. Therefore, without obtaining sanction u/s 17(1) of the Entertainment Tax Act the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence. On that ground alone, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.