2014 (3) TMI 779

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-06. Group (b) would comprise of the period between 2006-07 i.e. 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 and Group (c) would comprise of the period between 2007 to 2009. So far as the first period Group (a) is concerned, suffice is to record that the District Magistrate under his order dated 12.01.2004 determined the number of subscribers attached with the petitioner's T.V. Cable Network and determined the tax liability. Petitioner preferred an Appeal. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 26.03.2004 and the matter was remanded to the District Magistrate for passing fresh orders after getting fresh survey conducted. It appears that the matter with regard to the survey fresh remained pending. In between financial year 2004-05 and 2005-06 intervene. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er as well as on T.V. Channel. There was no requirement of any separate notice being issued to the petitioner. The number of subscribers attached to the petitioner cable network based on the aforesaid survey as reflected from the survey reports was communicated to the petitioner he was granted repeated opportunity to object to the number of subscribers so found. The District Magistrate also considered the impact of the order of the State Government in Appeal No. 16-A wherein it was held that if an advertisement has been published in newspaper as well as on t.v. channel then there is no requirement of any separate notice being issued to the petitioner before survey. The District Magistrate, on the basis of the records available and the repor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st known to the petitioner, he did not dispute the detail so provided nor he has challenged the same in the memo of appeal. His only ground was that the survey has not been done in his presence. The State Government has, therefore, come to a conclusion that the petitioner is only trying to avoid his tax liability. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. It is not disputed that the survey in the year 2003 after due publication in the newspapers and T.V. channels had been done. In my opinion there is no requirement of any further notice being issued to individual subscriber. Even otherwise once the list of subscribers attached to the petitioner cable network had been f....