9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 this court, it was clearly not permissible for the respondents to work out the entertainment tax and penalty for the period prior to the date of the previous checking. Thus the petition is partly allowed and the matter is remanded to the revisional authority for consideration of the revision, particularly the aforesaid contention and the principle laid down in the aforesaid orders of this court. - Special Civil Application No. 190 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2011 - HARSHA DEVANI (MS.) AND CHHAYA R.M. JJ. C.M. Gandhi for the petitioner Ms. Maithili Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion application before respondent No. 1, which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated February 24, 2005. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Mr. C.M. Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner, assailed the impugned orders on various grounds. It was, inter alia, contended that the respondent-authority did not take into consideration the aspect that it had no right to go beyond the date of past checking/previous checking and that what the authority was required to do is to check the situation that existed on the date of the visit, that is, on July 15, 2003. According to the learned advocate the authority could consider the period from the date of the last checking to the date of the current checking a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier decision in the case of Delux Cinema v. State of Gujarat as well as the decision rendered on July 17, 1997 in Special Civil Application No. 1005 of 1997, remanded the matter to the revisional authority on the short ground that the revisional authority had failed to consider that there was a previous checking and that the working of entertainment tax and penalty for the period prior to that date could not have been made. That contention had found favour with this court and therefore, the revisional authority was required to consider the petitioner's case in that respect. It was submitted that the aforesaid decisions would apply on all fours to the present case and as such, the authority could not have taken into consideration any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the revisional authority for consideration of the revision, particularly the aforesaid contention and the principle laid down in the aforesaid orders of this court. The impugned order dated February 24, 2005 passed by the revisional authority (annexure D to the petition) is hereby quashed and set aside. The revisional authority shall decide the revision application of the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard on all grounds including the aforesaid ground. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
