TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine of ₹ 50,000 instead of ₹ 1,44,675 which in our considered view is a maximum amount of penalty inflicted on the petitioner by the revisional authority for dodging/evading tax liability. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the order passed by the revisional authority The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly - - - - - Dated:- 16-3-2011 - HARSHA DEVANI AND ANTANI H.B., JJ. JUDGMENT:- The judgment of the court was delivered by H.B. ANTANI J. The petitioner, by way of filing the present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated August 23, 1996, whereby the penalty has been reduced to Rs. 50,000 though according to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner was required to pay was Rs. 2,27,175. 1Oral. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3 District Collector, under section 12 of the Gujarat Entertainment Tax (Amendment) Act, 1993. The petitioner was heard on December 11, 1995 and the Collector vide order dated January 9, 1996 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by respondent No. 4. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision application before respondent No. 2 on September 9, 1996 and respondent No. 2 vide order dated August 23, 1996 partly allowed the revision application and reduced the penalty from Rs. 1,44,675 to Rs. 50,000. The petitioner filed a review application before respondent No. 1 on Decemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on being carried out by the Department, the tax was paid on June 26, 1995 as there was a clear case of tax evasion. The revisional authority, while exercising the power under section 13 of the Gujarat Entertainment Tax (Amendment) Act, 1977, has rightly imposed the penalty of Rs. 50,000 which has been reduced from Rs. 1,44,675 and, therefore, no interference is called for in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner. The learned AGP has also placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Collector, Bhuj Sub-Division and submitted that even as per section 6(b) of the Gujarat Entertainment Tax (Amendment) Act, 1993 the entertainment tax was to be paid in advance in quarterly instalment. It is further submitted that section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x which was not paid for a period from April 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995, was paid after the inquiry. Even the connection which was started by the petitioner by its dish antenna was done without the prior intimation to the concerned authority. Thus, the petitioner had committed irregularity in starting the connection of dish antenna and had also evaded the payment of tax. The revisional authority has after considering the entire gamut and the evidence on record of the case held that the petitioner is liable to pay the fine of Rs. 50,000 instead of Rs. 1,44,675 which in our considered view is a maximum amount of penalty inflicted on the petitioner by the revisional authority for dodging/evading tax liability. We are, therefore, in complete agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
