https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293772 A sleeping partner who was not shown to be responsible for or in charge of a cinema house's management did not fall within the inclusive definition of "proprietor" under the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty Rules. The rules fixed compliance obligations on the proprietor, but mere partnership status was insufficient where the prosecution produced no evidence disproving the claim of inactive participation in management. In the absence of proof of managerial responsibility, liability for contravention of Rules 8A and 13, punishable under Rule 25, could not be fastened. The respondent was therefore not liable for the alleged breach and the acquittal stood. en-us Tue, 31 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Mar 2021 09:53:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293772 A sleeping partner who was not shown to be responsible for or in charge of a cinema house's management did not fall within the inclusive definition of "proprietor" under the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty Rules. The rules fixed compliance obligations on the proprietor, but mere partnership status was insufficient where the prosecution produced no evidence disproving the claim of inactive participation in management. In the absence of proof of managerial responsibility, liability for contravention of Rules 8A and 13, punishable under Rule 25, could not be fastened. The respondent was therefore not liable for the alleged breach and the acquittal stood. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 31 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293772