STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RATTAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab defendant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25th January, 1965, of the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge (exercising enhanced appellate powers) Sangrur, by which it dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab against Rattan Chand plaintiff and affirmed the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant by the Court of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Sangrur (Smt. Harmohinder Kaur), vide its judgment dated 30th December, 1963.

(2.) Rattan Chand plaintiff is the owner of Kamal Theatre, Malerkotla. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Entertainments Officer, Sangrur, served a notice dated 7th March, 1963, on Rattan Chand plaintiff directing him to produce his accounts and records for the period from 1st April, 1960 to 31st August, 1961 in his office on 19th March, 1963, so that entertainment duty might be assessed for that period for having shown the cinema shows to persons without realising the entertainment duty. That notice was served under rule 17 of the Punjab Entertainments Duty Rules, 1956 . Rattan Chand plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the aforesaid act of the said officer of summoning the record was illegal, void, without jurisdiction and mala fide, as that officer was not competent to assess the entertainment duty, nor could he call for the records relating to the period prior to more than one year, from the date of issue of notice. It was further pleaded that no person was ever challaned for non-payment of entertainment duty during that period and consequently a mention to that effect in the notice was false and without any basis; that the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Entertainments Officer was an employee of the State of Punjab, defendant, and, therefore, the defendant was responsible for his acts; that a notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure was served on the Chief Secretary to Punjab Government, but no action was taken on that notice by any authority. On the above allegations, the plaintiff sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its employees from calling for the accounts and records pertaining to the period from 1st April, 1960 to 31st August, 1961 relating to Kamal Theatre, Malerkotla, from the plaintiff and also further restraining them from assessing and realising entertainment duty for that period.

(3.) The defendant, in its written statement, contended that the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Entertainment Officer, Sangrur, was competent to call for the records pertaining to the period from 1st April, 1960 to 31st August, 1961 from the plaintiff and assess and levy the entertainment duty for that period as mentioned in the notice. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-