SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
*N. D. Ojha, C. J., Faizanuddin, J.
Asho Jain v. State of M.P. and Others


Table of Content
1. writ petition seeks to quash collector's order on entertainment duty. (Para 1 , 3)
2. court finds no grounds for interference; petition dismissed. (Para 2 , 9)
3. collector's authority under section 4-c confirmed; discretion upheld. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)

1. By this writ petition, an order passed by the Collector, Satna determining the amount of entertainment duty and penalty u/s 4 - C of the M. P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is sought to be quashed.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that no case for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been made out.

3. The facts in a nutshell necessary for consideration of the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are that on an inspection, it was found that in the cinema hall owned by the petitioner, there were many persons who were sitting with used tickets inspection whereof showed that entertainment duty had been paid earlier. This clearly indicated that no fresh tickets had been issued to those persons with the result that entertainment duty to that extent was apparently evaded. On the basi









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top