2011 (6) TMI 717

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent Tax), Gujarat State, rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, Sadhana Cinema, is a registered partnership firm. The said theatre has been closed down from February 16, 2004. Respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner (Entertainment Tax), Surat, served a notice under section 9(1) and 9(3) of the Gujarat Entertainments Tax Act, 1977 ("the Act") read with rule 15(2) of the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Rules, 1979 ("the Rules"), on October 3, 2003, wherein it was alleged that on July 15, 2003, the prescribed officer had visited in the second show between 3.30 to 6.30 p.m., along with other staff members and in the second show, 276 tickets were sold as shown in form No. 17. Various irregularities noticed during ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondents had taken into consideration alleged irregularities for the period between November 12, 2002 to January 7, 2003 whereas during the between January 7, 2003 to July 15, 2003 checking had been carried out on various dates and as such the respondents could not have assessed tax for a period prior to the date of the last previous checking. Attention was invited to the unreported decision of this court in the case of Delux Cinema v. State of Gujarat, rendered on December 16, 1996 in Special Civil Application No. 9693 of 1996, wherein the court had held that the petition should succeed on the short question that the revisional authority had failed to consider the ground that there was a previous This copy was printed from checking o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed orders being just, legal and proper, do not warrant any interference. It may be pertinent to note that it is the specific case of the petitioner that during the period between January 7, 2003 to July 15, 2003 checking had taken place on various occasions from time to time. Thus, on the last date when the checking took place prior to the checking in question, it appears that nothing wrong was found. However, in relation to the checking carried out on July 15, 2003 the authority has considered a period of more than six months prior to the date of checking, for the purpose of computation of tax, despite the fact that previous checking had taken place in relation to the said period. Thus, in the light of the above referred decisions of th....