TYAGI, J.—The petitioner in these 15 writ petitions have challenged the vires of sec. 10(3) of the Rajasthan Entertainments and Advertisements Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) and it has been prayed that the said section may be struck down as being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

2. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are, in a nutshell, as follows:

The petitioners are the exhibitor of cinema films at different places in Rajasthan. They were duty bound to pay the Entertainment Tax to the Government by adopting any one of the three different modes of payment of the tax as given in the Act. On a surprise checking made by the Commercial Taxation Officer and the Commercial Taxes Officer Survey and Investigation, it was discovered that the petitioners were evading tax by admitting persons to the exhibition of their films without making any payment thereof to the department under the Act. In all these cases proceedings were therefore taken under section 10(3) of the Act, and in some cases the Commercial Taxation Officer or in others the Commercial Faxes Officers Survey and Investigation passed orders imposing penalties as well as fixing the amount of tax payable under the provisions of the Act. These orders have been challenged by the petitioners by filing separate writ petitions praying inter alia that the provisions of sec. (10)3 of the Act be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19(1) (f) of the Constitution and the order passed by the respondents fixing the liability to pay tax and imposing penalty under the Act be quashed.

3. The respondents have filed replies in all these writ applications and have contended that it was within the competence of the Commercial Tax Officer to fix the liability of the tax evaded by the petitioner and to impose penalty under sec. 10(3) of the Act and that the provisions contained in the said sub-section are intra vires the constitutional provisions. The reply also contained certain facts under which the Commercial Officers were required to pass impugned orders under sec. 10(3) of the Act, but since all these writ applications can be disposed of by deciding the legal question regarding the validity of sec. 10(3), I need not go into the merits of the facts.

4. The primary question to be determined by the Court in these cases is whether sec. 10(3) of the Act is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1) (f) of the Constitution.

5. See. 10 of the Act deals with offences and penalties and it reads as follows:—

"10. Offences and penalties— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a ticket for admission to an entertainment shall not be resold for profit by the holder thereof.

(2) Whoever re-sells any ticket for admission in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (1) shall, on conviction before a Magistrate be liable to pay fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.

(3) If the proprietor of an entertainment.

(a) admits any person for payment to such entertainment in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (I) of sec. 6, or

(b) admits any person to such entertainment without payment or at concession rates otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed condition, or

(c) fails to pay the tax due from him under this Act within the prescribed time, or

(d) fraudulently evades the payment of any tax due from him under this Act, or

(e) contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules framed thereunder, the prescribed authority may direct that such proprietor shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to the amount to tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding five hundred rupees.

(4) In respect of offences mentioned in sub-sec. (3), a proprietor may be prosecuted and he shall on conviction before a Magistrate, be liable, in respect of each such offence to pay a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and shall, in addition, be liable to pay any tax which should have been paid by him:

Provided that no court shall take cognizance o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document