9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the Writ Court undoubtedly is. - petitioner is neither entitled to the benefit of the Gazette Notification dated 22.7.2009 nor any relief in the writ jurisdiction of this Court on account of her conduct while approaching this Court. - Decided against assessee. - Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4941 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2015 - Ramesh Kumar Datta And Anjana Mishra,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Jagdish Prasad Bhagat, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr Vikas Kumar AC to PAAG ORDER (Per: Honourable Mr. Justice Ramesh Kumar Datta ) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 13.1.2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upgradation work. It is further provided therein that the proprietor shall give intimation to the Member Secretary about the modernization and upgradation with complete information of expenditure thereon along with evidence and the Committee was to make evaluation of the real capital investment and intimate its decision within two months to the proprietor and the concerned Circle in-charge. 4. The petitioner claims to have filed an application on 13.8.2010 before the Member Secretary-cum-District Magistrate, Patna (SIC) claiming that expenditure of ₹ 7,22,139/- would be involved for upgradation and modernization of Mehi Picture Palace run by the petitioner and claimed exemption in terms of the aforesaid Notification. Thereafter ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an application for upgradation and modernization with an estimate and thereafter submitted the final expenditure on the aforesaid date and thus she was entitled to be given the benefit of adjustment of the said amount in entertainment tax in terms of the Gazette Notification dated 22.7.2009. 6. The stand of the State is that the petitioner has tried to make out a false case and has not come to this Court with clean hands. It is submitted that much prior to the so-called application dated 13.8.2010 the petitioner had already given her letter dated 11.6.2010 addressed to the District Magistrate, Patna in the context of change of name of the cinema house and conversion from partnership into proprietorship and intimated that the other partne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit. 7. On a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and going through the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is in agreement with the stand taken on behalf of the respondent State. It is evident from the letter of the petitioner dated 11.6.2010 (Annexure-C) that admittedly she had started the work of upgradation and modernization as early as on 15.5.2010 without making any such application as was required by the Gazette Notification dated 22.7.2009. The petitioner is therefore estopped from claiming any benefit under the said notification and even otherwise the suppression of facts would additionally disentitle the relief to the petitioner by a Court of equity which the Writ Court undoubtedly is. 8. Thus, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
