GOPI NATH MADAN GOPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in which the facts may be first stated.

(2.) THE petitioner firm is running a cinema within what is called Military Area, pathankot, known as sainik Kala Mandir. It is alleged in the petition that according to the arrangements between the Military authorities and the petitioner, the ownership of the building and the furniture vests in the Military authorities and the petitioner is only a licensee. According to the instructions of the Military authorities, only Military personnel are admitted to the show and the entry of civilian public is altogether prohibited. By virtue of a notification issued by the punjab Government the entertainment duty on tickets issued to the Military personnel and their families is exempt and, therefore, the petitioner was not authorised to charge any entertainment duty on the tickets issued to the Military personnel and their families. For this reason no entertainment duty was collected by the petitioner. The assessing Authority under the Punjab Entertainments Duty act, 1955, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) made an order on 30th June 1960 imposing a duty in the sum of Rs. 13,734. 12 np. for the period 11th May 1959 to 5th February 1960 to be paid to the State in the form of entertainment duty which according to the Assessing Authority, the petitioner had collected. The petitioner preferred three revision petitions against the orders passed by the assessing Authority to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner under Section 12 of the Act on 30th August 1950. The Revisional Authority was requested to decide the petitions without deposit of the entertainment duty but that Authority did not agree and passed an order on 28th October 1960 that the revisions could not be heard without the deposit of the entertainment duty as provided by Rule 36 of the punjab Entertainments Duty Rules, 1956. It was ordered that the amount be deposited within a month and a half, failing which the revision petitions would be dismissed in limine. The main attach of the petitioner is directed to the vires of rule 36 under which the. Revisional Authority has ordered that the deposit be made before the revision petitions are decided.

(3.) THE only point which requires determination is whether Rule 36 (3) (a) of the punjab Entertainments Duty Rules, 1956, is intra vires the provisions of the Act in so far as it provides for deposit of the duty assessed before a revision is entertained and decided by the Revisional Authority. The substantive provision in the Act giving the powers of revision is Section 12 which may set out-