9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment orders afresh. 2.. The brief facts leading to the filing of the revisions are as follows: The revision petitioner is the proprietor of Sri Srinivasa Theatre at Thuni and he paid the entertainment tax under section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 (for short "the Act") up to December 31, 1983. Subsequently, sections 4 and 5 of the Act were amended and the revision petitioner challenged the amendment in W.P. No. 7241 of 1984 [Alankar Theatre v. Entertainment Tax Officer [1991] 82 STC 417 (AP)] which was subsequently dismissed. The revision petitioner thereupon filed the civil appeal in Supreme Court which was dismissed in Civil Appeal No. 1488 of 1985 dated May 10, 1993. The Supreme Court further upheld t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside. 4.. Now the following questions of law are involved in the above revisions: 1.. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is justified in not upholding the contention of the petitioner that in the absence of specific period of limitation under the Act for completion of assessment is one year from the end of relevant quarter which is the reasonable time? 2.. Whether the Appellate Deputy Commissioner erred in not accepting the plea of the petitioner that in the event of six years being the outer time-limit contemplated under law even for assessing escaped assessment, six years from the end of the relevant quarter should be considered as outer-limit for completing the assessment? 3.. Whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er shall continue to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the principal Act 10 of 1939 as amended by clause 3 of the A.P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1983. (b) The petitioner shall furnish immovable property as security or bank guarantee for the difference of entertainment tax amount payable under the provisions of Ordinance 9 of 1984 and the tax actually payable by the petitioner under the preceding clause (a) of this order. (c) The bank guarantee or immovable property security shall be furnished every month commencing from May, 1984 on or before 15th of every month. (d) The security furnished above shall be to the satisfaction of the concerned Entertainment Tax Officer." 6.. As the matter was pending in the High Court and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... caped assessment. Further it is contended by the Special Government Pleader for Taxes that since the matter was pending in the High Court and the Supreme Court and there was stay of collection of tax, the balance of tax can be collected after the disposal of the appeal in the Supreme Court. The Special Government Pleader further contended that the assessment is within the reasonable time and at any rate within six years if the period of stay granted by the High Court and the Supreme Court are excluded. Further since the Appellate Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter for fresh disposal, the revisions may be dismissed. 8.. Section 9(2) of the Act provides as follows: "9(2) If the prescribed authority is satisfied that any return submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id amount. Subsequently, when the matter was disposed, the assessing authority assessed the arrears of tax payable as per the amended provisions basing on form VI filed by the assessee. The revision petitioner was regularly paying the tax payable under old provision and furnished bank guarantee for the amount due under the amended provisions. The assessee knew the difference of tax payable for which he furnished bank guarantee as there was stay and therefore the assessing authority could not pass assessment orders for the amount due at that time till the matter was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court. I have gone through the terms and conditions imposed in the High Court order in the stay petition filed before the High Court in the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Deputy Commissioner rightly remanded the matter for fresh disposal. For the abovesaid reasons, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is justified in directing the remand of the case to the Entertainments Tax Officer instead of nullifying the order. He is also further justified in holding that the period covered by the stay orders granted by the High Court and the Supreme Court should be excluded and the assessment orders passed now are not barred by limitation. For the above circumstances, there are no merits in the revision petitions and all the revisions are liable to be dismissed. 11.. In the result, all the revision petitions are dismissed confirming the impugned common order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kakin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
