TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 831
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Wing of the Commercial Tax Department of the residential premises of the deponent of the writ petition on 7-8-2000 as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to return the seized books of accounts and other records to the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. Imposition of tax on horseracing and certain forms of betting in connection therewith is governed by the Hyderabad Horse Racing and betting Tax Regulation of 1358 F., (for short the Regulations which are framed in the erstwhile Hyderabad State in 1358 Fasli. Though much water has flown under the bridge, still the said Regulations govern collection of tax on horseracing and other forms of betting in connection therewith. Chapter I of the Regulations deal with tax on horse racing and Chapter II deals with taxes on certain forms of betting. 4. Petitioner is a licensed book-maker, as defined under Regulation 12 of the Regulations, in the Hyderabad Race Course. As per Regulation 12(c) of the Regulations, a licensed book-maker means any person who carries on the business or vocation of or acts as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs for assessment, so as to demand further tax from the book-maker. 8. The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement, Office of the Joint Commissioner (CT), Enforcement has filed common counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent. In the counter-affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that petitioner is a licensed book-maker, who used to carry on business within the premises of Hyderabad Race Club and such other locations as may be permitted by the appropriate authority. It is averred that an anonymous complaint has been received by the respondent, specifically stating that the petitioner has suppressed total monies collected as bets and the petitioner was collecting the betting tax also from the backers and has illegally retained the amount. It is stated that, after obtaining necessary permission from the Deputy Commissioner, officials of the Enforcement Wing of Commercial Tax Department had approached the petitioner at his house and requested him to produce all his accounts; account books were available in the house of the petitioner and upon request, petitioner had immediately produced all the books available in his house; thereafter a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counts books etc., impugned proceedings are initiated. It is submitted that, betting tax at 12.5% is to be paid to the Government, out of the monies paid or agreed to be paid by a backer and the when the petitioner, having collected money, has not paid tax as contemplated under the Regulations, respondent has authority to assess such suppressed turnover to collect the balance tax payable by the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the Hyderabad Horse Racing and betting Tax Regulation of 1358 Fasli, and the Rules made thereunder, respondent is empowered to make a search even at the place other than the Race Course. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the Hyderabad Horse Racing and betting Tax Regulation of 1358 Fasli and the Rules made thereunder. The said Regulations govern collection of tax on horseracing and other forms of betting in connection therewith. The petitioner is a licensed book-maker, as defined under Regulation 12(c) of the Regulations. Regulation 16 clearly provides for payment of tax at 12.5% towards betting. As per Regulation 18(2) of the Regulations, all licensed book-makers shall keep the accounts as prescribed and of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons or the Rules, we are constrained to hold that the respondent is not having any jurisdiction or authority either to initiate proceedings or to pass any order assessing the tax payable by the petitioner on the allegation of suppressing the turnover or retention of tax collected by the petitioner-book-maker. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in K. Babji Rao v. State of A.P., wherein this Court, while considering the power of the Entertainment Tax Officer under the provisions of Entertainment Tax Rules, to reopen previous returns, which have been accepted already and assess the tax for the past periods, held that in the absence of any provision for reopening previous assessments, which are already accepted, respondents cannot reopen such assessments. It is fairly well settled that tax laws, being fiscal statutes, must be construed strictly and, further, in view of the judgment referred above, we are of the considered view that in the absence of any provision to make a demand for payment of tax based on the suppressed turnover, respondent-authority is not empowered to initiate any proceedings either by issuin....