LAWS(RAJ)-1997-8-1

KAILASH TALKIES Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On August 12, 1997
KAILASH TALKIES Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This Civil Special Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th February, 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6684/92, M/s. Kailash Talkies v. State of Rajasthan, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant (petitioner) was dismissed on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order Annexure-8 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below :-

(3.) The appellant is the owner of a Picture Hall known as Kailash Talkies situated in Kapasan, District Chittorgarh. On 30th August, 1988 at 7-45 p.m. the Commercial Taxes Officer Shri Samrath Lal Panwar made an inspection of Kailash Talkies in presence of Shri Jagdish Prasad Borgama, brother of one of the partners and found that at that time, the picture "Parwana" was being exhibited. It was also found by the Inspecting Officer that the tickets issued to the spectators were not issued from the authenticated ticket books and the tickets were issued to various persons from the ticket books bearing serial numbers, which had different from the ticket books authenticated by the department. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Assessing Authority. In reply to the show cause notice, the appellant submitted its reply stating therein that the ticket books used on 30th August, 1988 were from the ticket books used up to 31st December, 1987 duly authenticated and that they were used on that day because the current ticket books were lying in a locked cup-board and the key was with the partner, who was out of station. Another reason for using the ticket books, which were used up to 31st December, 1987 was that the new ticket books bearing new rates were not got printed by that time. It was also stated in the explanation submitted by the appellant that a remark to this effect was duly noted by the Booking Clerk on the said series being used on that day.