Allowed

M/S Srinivasa Deluxe Theaatre Ongole v. Dy.Comm. (C.T.) (Fac) Guntur E.Tax.Apple

Telangana HC23 Jan 2012CRP/2566/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenged the respondent's refusal to entertain an appeal due to procedural defects including delay and fee non-payment. The court held these defects were technical and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 12-9-2001 is set aside; respondent directed to entertain petitioner's appeal and dispose of it on merits within two months.

M/S Srinivasa Deluxe Theaatre Ongole Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.2566 of 2002

¶3

Date: 23-01-2012

¶4

Between

¶5

M/s. Srinivasa Deluxe Theatre, West Kammapalem, Ongole

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

The Entertainments Tax Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T)(FAC), Guntur

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶11

Civil Revision Petition No.2566 of 2002

¶12

Order:

¶13

This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 12-9-2001 of the respondent, whereby it has refused to entertain the

¶14

appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22-3-2001 of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer No.II (FAC), Ongole.

¶15

2. The petitioner is a cinema theatre. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer vide his order dated 22-3-2001 assessed a sum of Rs.74,424/- towards short levy of Entertainment Tax for the period from 17-8-2000 to 15-02-2001. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the respondent. The said appeal was refused to be entertained by the respondent on three grounds, namely, (1) that there was delay of 16 days in filing appeal, (2) that original assessment order passed by the Entertainment Tax Officer was not enclosed, and (3) that the appeal institution fee of Rs.50/- was not paid.

¶16

3. At the hearing, there was no representation for the respondent.

¶17

4. Sri A.K.Jailswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that when final notice was issued to the petitioner on 04-6-2001 indicating the above defects, the petitioner has submitted a petition seeking condonation of delay of 15 days and that the respondent has failed to take the same into consideration. On the objection of non payment of Rs.50/- as appeal fees, the learned counsel submitted that his client has taken a challan for Rs.1,000/- on 02-5-2001 towards the institution fees in appeal even though Rs.50/- is prescribed as fees. As regards the third objection, he submitted that there is no provision for filing original order under Section 9B of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 read with Rule 38(2) of the Rules made thereunder.

¶18

5. From the impugned order, it is evident that all the objections raised by the respondent are technical in nature. Even though the petitioner ought to have filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay,

¶19

having regard to the facts of the case the respondent ought to have considered the petitioner’s letter for condonation of delay. From the copies of the material furnished by the petitioner, it appears that it has paid Rs.1,000/- towards appeal fees and a perusal of the statutory provisions does not indicate that the petitioner needs to file original order.

¶20

6. For the abovementioned reasons, the order dated

¶21

12-9-2001 is set aside. The respondent is directed to entertain the petitioner’s appeal and dispose of the same on merits within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order after notice to the petitioner.

¶22

7. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.

¶23

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. 23^rd January, 2012. Ak

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶25

Civil Revision Petition No.2566 of 2002

¶26

23^rd January, 2012. (Ak)

M/S Srinivasa Deluxe Theaatre Ongole v. Dy.Comm. (C.T.) (Fac) Guntur E.Tax.Apple

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Srinivasa Deluxe Theaatre Ongole v. Dy.Comm. (C.T.) (Fac) Guntur E.Tax.Apple

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Damodar, Vs C.ramu Yadav

M/S Shriram Chits [P] Limited, Vs P.Sridhar

Smt. Smitha Anand, Vs v.Sandesh Reddy

Vijaya Bank,Malakpet Branch, Vs Shaik mohinuddin

Veeramani and Another Vs Mumtaz Ali , Mumtaz Ahmed and 2 Others

L. Dasaratha Naidu Vs S. Raja Reddy