1988 (4) TMI 416 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with procedure as laid down in a previous case.
2. Validity of the order of the assessing authority under Section 3(PA) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939.
3. Interpretation of rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939.
4. Jurisdiction of assessing authority in making best judgment assessment.
5. Retrospective effect of Section 3(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contended that the assessing authority did not follow the procedure laid down in a previous case, Kamalammal v. Board of Revenue. The court noted that the main grievance was the failure to adhere to the procedure established in the previous judgment. The court referenced various decisions, including W.P. No. 1084 of 1974 and W.P. No. 4560 of 1970, to establish the authority's role in ensuring the correct amount of tax is displayed on tickets. The court emphasized that the responsibility for collecting the correct tax amounts rests solely with the proprietor, not the assessing authority.

2. The validity of the order of the assessing authority under Section 3(PA) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 was challenged. The court analyzed the relevant portions of the order and compared them with previous judgments. The court highlighted that the Entertainments Tax Officer's role is primarily to authenticate tickets to prevent fraud, not to verify tax amounts. The court dismissed the petitioner's contentions and upheld the authority's order, stating that the responsibility for tax collection lies with the proprietor.

3. The interpretation of rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939 was a crucial aspect of the case. The court clarified that the rule does not mandate the Entertainments Tax Officer to verify tax amounts on tickets but rather to authenticate them to prevent fraud. The court emphasized that the rule aims to prevent misuse of tickets by proprietors and does not impose a duty on the officer to verify tax amounts.

4. The court examined the jurisdiction of the assessing authority in making a best judgment assessment. Referring to Kamalammal v. Board of Revenue, the court emphasized that each assessment should be made separately for each week a cinema is shown. The court quashed the order as it was made without jurisdiction, citing the lack of material to support the conclusion that returns were incorrect or incomplete.

5. The retrospective effect of Section 3(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act was a key issue. The court determined that since Section 3(PA) was introduced by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1974, it cannot have retrospective effect. Therefore, the court set aside the order as it was against the law and the principles established in previous judgments. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order, noting the limitation under the Act prevented remitting the matter for fresh disposal.

In conclusion, the court's detailed analysis covered various legal aspects, including compliance with procedures, validity of orders, interpretation of rules, jurisdiction of assessing authorities, and retrospective effect of statutory provisions, resulting in the allowance of the writ petition and the quashing of the order.