The authority under Section 4-C of the Act may issue orders based on inspection reports without being the inspecting officer.

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 basis of the report of inspection and other records, the Collector determined the amount of entertainment duty which appeared to have been evaded by the petitioner. He added another amount as penalty. The amount of penalty so added is admittedly less than the penalty which was permissible to be imposed u/s 4 - C of the Act.

4. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the Collector had been authorised to pass an order u/s 4 - C of the Act, he had not made the inspection on the basis of which the amount of entertainment duty and penalty had been determined. According to him, on a plain reading of S.4 - C of the Act, it would appear that he who makes inspection, can alone determine the amount of entertainment duty as well as penalty. Emphasis in support of this submission was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the words 'he may'. It was urged that the words 'he may' used in S.4 - C of the Act read with the words, 'If on an inspection of the place of entertainment' make it clear that it is the same person who had made the inspection who is authorised to pass an order u/s 4 - C of the Act. We find it difficult to agree with this submission.

5. S.4 - C of the Act reads as under :
"4 - C. Power to impose penalty - If on an inspection of a place of entertainment, or after examination of the records, accounts and stocks of stamps maintained by a proprietor, the Excise Commissioner or any other officer as may be authorised by the State Government in this behalf, comes to the conclusion that entertainment duty or advertisement tax payable under this Act has been evaded by the proprietor, he may, after giving the proprietor a reasonable opportunity of being heard, assess to the best of his judgement the duty or tax payable by the proprietor for a period not exceeding thirty days immediately proceeding as if the evasion substituted for the whole of such period and he may direct that the proprietor shall pay by way of penalty in addition to the amount of duty or tax so assessed, as the case may be, a sum equal to half that amount for the first such evasion in a calendar year, and a sum not exceeding twice but not less than half that amount for the second or subsequent evasion in that year."
In our opinion, on a plain reading of S.4 - C, it is apparent that it is not necessary that the order contemplated by S.4 - C may necessarily be passed by the same person who had made inspection of a place of entertainment. This view of ours finds support from the use of the word 'or' after the words 'if on an inspection of a place of entertainment' and the words 'after examination of the records'. The import of the use of the word 'or' is that even in those cases where no inspection of a place of entertainment may have been made, the Offi