M/S. Master Channel Community Net Work (P) v. The Dy. Commissioner (R), Municipal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No. 14145 OF 2004 Date: 03.02.2016 Between:

M/s. Master Channel Community Network (P) Limited., Vijayawada.

... Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner (R), Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, Vijayawada.

... Respondent

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No. 14145 OF 2004 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following prayer: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, declaring that the petitioner is not liable to pay the entertainment tax on cable service provided by it to the cable operators in the absence of any prescription of the rules regarding the manner of levy, collection of tax, submission of returns by the petitioner, as mentioned in Section 15A(3) of the A.P.

Entertainment Tax Act 1939 and consequently set a side the impugned notices of the respondent dated 2-8-2004 and 9-8-2004 respectively, seeking payment of entertainment tax tentatively, as without authority of law and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." It appears, initially, on 02.08.2004 notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 15A of A.P. Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 read with G.O.Ms.No.708 (REV) CT-III, dated 03.10.2000. The petitioner replied to the notice vide their letter, dated 07.08.2004, raising certain questions/objections, which, according to the petitioner, go to the root and also demonstrate that they are not liable to pay the tax as demanded. Thereafter, the respondent issued final notice, dated 09.08.2004.

In the instant writ petition, both the notices, namely, notice, dated 02.08.2004, and final notice, dated 09.08.2004, have been challenged. We have perused the final notice, which, though make reference to notice, dated 02.08.2004, and the reply in the final notice we find that the questions/objections raised by the petitioner in their reply are not considered by the concerned authority. Learned counsel for the respondent could not and did not point out from the final notice that the reply of the petitioner to the notice, dated 02.08.2004, was considered by the respondent while issuing final notice. In view thereof, learned counsel for the parties have agreed for the following order: "The respondent shall consider the petitioner's reply, dated 07.08.2004, to the notice, dated 02.08.2004, and pass fresh order/issue fresh final notice of demand, if necessary. The respondent shall grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and decide the notice, treating it as show cause notice, and

reply on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the concerned authorities within a period of ten days from today. It is open to the petitioner to file additional reply, if they so desire, and place additional material on record in support thereof, within a period of two weeks from today." With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ________________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J Date: 03.02.2016 ES Note: Furnish C.C. today.