2014 (3) TMI 779 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Evasion of tax liability Entertainment tax by T.V. Cable Operator - determination of number of subscribers - Requirement of further notice after publication in the newspaper and T.V. Channel - Opportunity of being heard Held that - There is no requirement of any further notice being issued to individual subscriber - Once the list of subscribers attached to the petitioner cable network had been furnished to him after fresh survey, he had ample opportunity to dispute the same - But instead of taking recourse to the said procedure the petitioner has only been harping on the ground that the survey had not been done in his presence - He has not disputed the list of subscribers attached to his cable network as per the order of the District Magistrate and that of the State Government - The findings recorded in the orders impugned are based on true and correct appreciation of evidence - No interference is warranted against the impugned order Decided against Assessee.

Issues:
1. Tax liability of a T.V. Cable Operator for the period between 2003 to 2009.
2. Dispute regarding the number of subscribers attached to the cable network.
3. Appeal against the orders passed by the District Magistrate and State Government.
4. Allegation of non-compliance with previous orders and the Samadhan Yojna.
5. Challenge of the order passed by the State Government.

Issue 1: Tax Liability
The petitioner, a T.V. Cable Operator, was involved in a dispute regarding tax liability for the period between 2003 to 2009. The District Magistrate initially determined the tax liability based on the number of subscribers attached to the cable network. However, multiple appeals and orders were passed subsequently, leading to a final determination of the tax liability for different periods within the disputed timeframe.

Issue 2: Number of Subscribers
The key issue revolved around the number of subscribers attached to the petitioner's cable network. Various surveys were conducted, and the District Magistrate determined the number of subscribers based on these surveys. The petitioner challenged the findings, alleging non-compliance and lack of personal presence during the surveys. However, the State Government concluded that the petitioner did not dispute the provided details and was attempting to avoid tax liability.

Issue 3: Appeals
The petitioner filed appeals against the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the State Government. The appeals were dismissed based on the appreciation of material evidence and survey reports. The State Government noted the absence of the petitioner during the appeal hearing, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance and lack of challenge to the subscriber details provided.

Issue 4: Allegation of Non-Compliance
The petitioner alleged non-compliance with previous orders requiring a fresh determination of tax liability and consideration under the Samadhan Yojna. However, the State Government found that the petitioner had the opportunity to dispute the subscriber details provided but failed to do so, focusing instead on the absence during surveys.

Issue 5: Challenge of State Government Order
The petitioner challenged the State Government's order, arguing against the requirement of personal presence during surveys. The Court, after considering the evidence and circumstances, found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the orders passed by the District Magistrate and State Government.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the findings in the impugned orders were based on a correct appreciation of evidence. The Court found no grounds for interference and discharged any interim orders.

← Previous Next →