Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption of entertainment tax under S.O. No. 138 dated 22.07.2009 issued under Section 10(2) of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act, 1948, despite commencing modernization work before making the required application and despite suppression of material facts.
Analysis: The exemption scheme required an application with estimate to be filed before commencement of upgradation and modernization work. The record showed that the petitioner had already started the work on 15.05.2010, while the claim was later projected as if the statutory notification had been followed. The Court accepted the State's stand that the plea for exemption was an afterthought and that the petitioner had not approached the Court with full disclosure. In equitable jurisdiction, suppression of facts disentitles a litigant to relief, and the petitioner could not claim the benefit of the notification after violating its conditions.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to exemption or adjustment of entertainment tax under the notification.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the statutory conditions for exemption were not satisfied and the petitioner's conduct barred equitable relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A person who commences modernization work before seeking the benefit of a conditional exemption notification and suppresses material facts cannot claim the exemption or invoke equitable writ relief.