SRl. KARTHIK RAMANA PUfiAMREDDY REP SRI v. SIDDHARTH REDDY

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the urgent Notice issued by the 1't Respondent dt. 4.7.2007 demanding an amount of Rs.4,85,1421- for the period 1998-99, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2OO4-20O5, through her order dt. 24.8.2007 in proceeding No.G.l. No.HYR/38212007 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed without authority of law and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to Section 9-B of the A.P. Entertainment Tax Act and set aside the same and consequently set aside the notice issued by the 3'd respondent dt.22.9.07 proposing distress of the movable property of the petitioner and declare that the petitioner is entitled for breakup of the alleged tax arrears and declare that the 1't respondent is bound to pass assessment orders for each Quarter as directed by the 2nd respondent through its orders dt. 11.11.2004 for the entire pe-riod in dispute l.A. NO: 1 OF 2007 P. NO: 26285 OF 2007) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of recovery of the disputed Tax of Rs.4,85,19421- in pursuance of the urgent notice issued by the 1't respondent dt. 4.7.2007 in Proceedings Ref.No.B/14t60912OO3, and the consequential notice of the 3'd respondent dt.22.9.O7 pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KARTHIK RAMANA PUfiAMREDDY REP SRI V. SIDDHARTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T. CHAITANYA KIRAN AGP REP SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GP FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.2O331 of 2OO7 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAI/I KOSHY) Heard Mr.Karthik Ramana PuttamreddSr, learned counsel repiesenting Mr.V.Siddharth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the respondents and perused the record.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.O8.2OO7 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad, in case No.GI.No.Hyd/382/2OO7, this instant writ Petition has been filed.

3. Vide the impugned ord.er, respondent No.2 had rejected the appeal of the petitioner holding it to be not maintainable as the appeal had been filed neither against the order nor the proceeding recorded-

4. For ready reference, the opemtive portion of the impugned order is being reproduced herein under: "In this connection, the appellants are informed that as per the provisi<,ns under Section 9-B of the APET Act, 1939 "any proprietor aggrieved by an order passed or a proceeding recorded ty urw auttroiity under the provisions of this Act, may within (3) alys irom the date on which the order or proceedings was served orrhim, appeal to such appellate authority ma5hqreceived." But 2 the appellants have f,rled the appeal against "Final Notice", which is neither an order nor or a proceeding recorded by the Enterterinment Tax Officer. Hence," I lind that the appeal frled by the appellants is not entertainable and accordingly the appeat is rejected. " It would be relevant at this juncture, to take note of the

5. provisions of Section 98 and the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Act, tg3g (for short "the Act"), which again for ready reference reproduced herein under: '11) Any proprietor aggrieved by an order passed or a proceeding recorded by any authority under the provisions of this Act, may within thirty days from the date on which the order or proceeding was served on him, appeal to such appellate authority as may be prescribed; Provided that the appellate authority may admit an appeal preferred after a period of thirty days aforesaid if it is satisfied that the proprietor has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that per:iod. (2],rhe appeal shall be in such form and verilied in such manner, as may be prescribed, and shall be accompanied by a fee calculated at the rate of one percent of the tax under dispute, subject to a maximum rupees frfty. (3) where an appeal is admitted under sub-section (1) the appellate authority may, on an application frled by the appellant and subject to such terms and conditions as it may think fit, order stay of collection of the tax under dispute, pending disposal of the appeal. (4) Against an order passed by the appellate authority refusing to order stay under sub-section (3) the appellant may prefer revision petition within thirty days from the date of the order of such refusal to such authority as may be prescribed which may, subject to such terms and conditions as it may think fit, order stay of coilection of tax under dispute pending the disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority. (5) The appellate authority may, after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard and subject to such rules of procedure as may be prescribed, (a) confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or penart5r or both; or (b) set aside the assessment or penalty or both and direct the authority whose order is appealed against to pass a fresh order after such further enquiry as may be directed; or (c) pass such other order as it may think frt. (6) Before passing orders under sub-section (5) the appelatl authority may make such enquiry as it deems f,rt or remand thi "rse to any subordinate oflicer or authority for an enquiry and report on any specified point or points. (7) Every order passed in appeal under this section shall, subject to the provisions of Sections 9-c, 9-D and 9-E, be final." \, 3

6. After reading the order passed by the Appellate Authority and also on reading the provisions of Section 98 which could be now relevant to look into the operative part of the correspondence made by respondent No.1 dated O4.O7.20O7 against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 98 of the Act. The second paragraph to the said order dated O4.O7.2OO7 issued by the Entertainment of Tax Officer reads as under: " Therefore M/s. Sri Lakshmi Kala Mandir 70 mm Lothukunta are requested to pay the following due amount within (3) days from the date of receipt of the notice failing which action under R.R.Act will be initiated to recover the due amount. SL.NO YEAR AMOUNT

04. 1998-99 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Rs.1,06,6O4-00 Rs. 25,664-00 Rs.2,16,577-00 Rs.1,36,297-00 Rs.4,85, L42-OO "

7. The ptain reading of the observation made by the Entertainment ,. of Tax Officer would clearly reflect that there was a demand raised by the Entertainment of Tax Officer directing the petitioner to pay certain Entertainment tax, which according to the Entertainment of Tax Officer fell due for the various periods in the past which again is reflected in the correspondence dated O4.O7.2O07..-Two things that 4 reflect from the reading of the aforesaid portion passed by the Entertainment of Tax Officer are that one there was a direction to make the demand to the tune of Rs.4,85,142/- within the stipulated period i.e. three days time; second; there was a-lso an order that in the event if there is a default on the part of the petitioner, the Department would be initiating Revenue Recovery proceedings ensuring the recovery to be made pursuant to the demand so made. Both these facts are strong enough to hold that it is not a notice that was issued by the Department rather it vvould squarely fall within the purview of order passed b_v a statutory authoritl,. Even though, there is no reference to any provision of law while passing the same.

8. Keeping this in mind, when u,e read the provisions of Section 98 of the Act, we have to give a more liberal and wider interpretation to the provision wherein they have stated that any person aggrieved by an order passed it could be of any nature and the correspondence dated O4.O7.2O07 is one which undoubtedly is in the nature of an order. If not at least it is definitely a proceeding recorded by the statutory authority directing to comply with certain directions failing which there was also a threat of coercive steps to be taken under either of the situations, the remedy that was available under the statute with the petitioner was that of an appeal which it had preferred. 5 In view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case and also upon g. reading the provisions of the Section 98 of the AP F'ntertainments Tax Act, 1939, we do not have any hesitation in holding that the appeal so preferred by the petitioner was duly constituted und'er section 98 assailing the order dated o4.o7.2OO7. The impugned order dated 24.Oa.2O07 passed by the Appellate Deputy commissioner' Hyd'erabad Rural Division, Hyderabad., therefore, is not sustainable' The same is accordingly set aside and the matter stands remanded back to the to proceed and decide the aPPeal Appellate AuthoritY in accordance with law.

10. considering the fact that the matter pertains to 2OO7 ' the Appellate Authority is expected to take a decision at the earliest preferably, within ninety (9O) days from the d,ate of receipt of the copy of this order. 1 1. The Writ Petition stands allowed' As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any' shall stand closed That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness rHE Hoil;ii'iine cHrEF iusircE Apanesn KUMAR SINGH TUESDA;iiC FO-U5T-EENTH DAY OF OCTOBER iwo rtiousAND AND rwENrY FlvE //TRUE COPY/ SD/.T. SRINIVASAREDDY iiepurv REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFIGER To, %-*1-lffi 1 TheEntertainmentTaxOfficer,MalkajgiriCircle,RangaReddyDistrict. J

2. 3. 4. 5. The lppellate Dy. commissioner (cr),.H.ydgr,abqd.Rural Division, Hyderabad lhe Qepyty cgmmerciat rAx offiier,lvlar'ra;giii'cirirl, nrngJn"toi ortirict. one CC to SRt. V. SIDDHARTH REDoy, AEvocJteibpuif Two ccs to GP FoR COMMERCTAL rnx ,nigh C;d,r for ttie state of TelangSn_a at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies

6. BM LS \ty ,l HIGH COURT DATED i1411012025 \ \ Tl.iE S r4 o k $'f I (i i 10 M + /: -.. ')rr2.--,,.--r' ._--)z -l- .a { ORDER WP.No.20331 of 2007 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q,r{d ffr,, {