Indusind Media & Communications v. State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) (V.K. Tahilramani, J.)
Judgment
Mr. Aspi Chinoy a/w Mr. V.R. Dhond, Mr. A.S. Kamat i/by Crawford Bayley & Co. for Petitioners. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, G.P., for Respondent State. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE: 25TH MARCH, 2009. DATE: 25TH MARCH, 2009. DATE: 25TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
The petitioners have approached this Court for seeking a writ in the nature of an order or direction 2 to respondent nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw the impugned orders dated 18.3.2009 annexed to the petition as Exhibits "O", "P" and "Q" for setting aide and quashing the same along with further ancillary reliefs.
It is the case of the petitioners that the impugned orders have been passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing and, therefore, it vitiates the orders which call upon the respondents to pay entertainment duty along with the penalty and further the orders are passed in a proforma by filling in the blanks which speaks for itself.
In order to satisfy ourselves we called upon the learned Government Pleader to place on record the proceedings relating to the entertainment duty which has been assessed by the respondents in the case of the petitioners pursuant to which the impugned orders came to be passed.
On going through the records and proceedings, prima facie we are satisfied that the orders have been passed without following the principles of natural justice i.e. without giving a fair opportunity to the petitioners to the extent of deciding the matter even without furnishing the particulars of the survey 3 reports purported to be conducted by the respondent authority which is the basic foundation for passing of the impugned orders and, therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned orders, remit the matter to the respondent no. 3 and direct him to furnish the survey reports of the period for which entertainment duty is to be assessed in accordance with law as required under the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923. On furnishing the survey report, the respondent no. 3 would take written acknowledgement from the petitioners. On receipt of the survey report, the petitioners will file their reply within seven days and thereafter the respondent no. 3 may fix a date of hearing the petitioners shall file their written statement on record and will also be given an opportunity of being heard and represented through a counsel. In case the order requires the petitioners to pay entertainment duty and penalty levied on the same, the petitioners would be given at least seven days time before the order is implemented from the date the order is furnished to the petitioners and their acknowledgement to that effect is obtained. 4
Operative part
The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) (V.K. Tahilramani, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition stands disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 25 Mar 2009. The bench was N PATEL, V K TAHILRAMANI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.