2011 (3) TMI 1508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e charged the interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. The petitioner has installed "dish antenna" at bhuj and registered himself with the competent authority of the area during October, 1993. The petitioner also registered with respondent No. 4 and paid taxes as required under the provisions of the Gujarat Entertainment Tax (Amendment) Act, 1993 as well as the Gujarat Entertainment Tax (Exhibition By Means of Cable Television and Antenna) Rules, 1993, framed thereunder. It is submitted that the petitioner had merged the "dish antenna" centre with the capital network and Hari-Om cable network and retained the name of Hari-Om cable network on January 1, 1995. Respondent No. 4 carried out inspection in the premises of the petitioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d alleged to have replied on November 7, 1996 but the petitioner had not received the communication from respondent No. 1. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 by letter dated September 3, 1999 informed the petitioner that the review application dated November 20, 1996 could not be entertained. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has preferred the present petition assailing the order passed by the revisional authority. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the revisional authority while confirming the order passed by the Collector has not appreciated the entire material on record of the case in its proper perspective. The penalty imposed by the authorities cannot be sustained as no findi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....officer that the payment of tax is not paid or wilfully evaded, then the prescribed officer can direct the proprietor to pay in addition to the tax assessed, the penalty in exceeding one and half times the tax so assessed. Thus, it is submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner has no merit and the petition in view of the reasoning given by the revisional authority and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State Government, deserves to be dismissed with costs. We have heard Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Maithily Mehta, learned AGP, for the respondents at length and in great detail. We have also perused the averments made in the petition as well as the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Collecto....