THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITON NOs.251 TO 263 OF 2006 DATED: 10-02-2011. Between K.Subba Rao, Proprietor, Sri Srinivasa Theatre, Tuni … Petitioner And 1.Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Visakhapatnam. 2.Entertainment Tax Officer, Tuni …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITON NOS.251 TO 263 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER: These revisions are directed under Section 9-D of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the order, dated 20-09-2005, passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Visakhapatnam (for short ‘A.D.C.’). 2. The Entertainment Tax Officer, Tuni (for short ‘E.T.O.’) passed the order, dated 22-06-1998 duly assessing the entertainment tax payable by the exhibitor for screening films to the Government. The said order was challenged before the A.D.C. and the A.D.C. Kakinada, by order, dated 09-10-1998 while rejecting the contention with regard to delay in assessment of tax, set aside the order of the E.T.O. and remanded the matter to issue fresh notice to the appellants by furnishing all the particulars of arriving difference of entertainment tax under each show for the period from 01-01-1984 to 15-01-1987 and also made available the information required by the appellants and pass orders afresh after considering the objections of the appellants. Insofar as limitation aspect is concerned, the petitioners has filed revision challenging that order, which was dismissed on 31-12-2002. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the assessment of entertainment tax by E.T.O. has become final. Perhaps that is the reason why, the learned counsel for petitioners fairly conceded that he is not pressing for the limitation point. Then E.T.O. issued assessment show cause notice, for which the petitioner made a representation on 16-06-2004 to furnish the copies of weekly returns filed, for the reason that the records maintained by him were damaged in the floods. Thereafter, the assessment order was passed on 01-03-2005. Challenging the same, appeals were filed before the A.D.C. and the A.D.C. confirmed the order of the assessing authority. Hence, these revisions. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Section 9 of the Act and Rule 16 of A.P. Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939 (for short the Rules’) framed there under have not been followed so as to determine the tax liability, that in spite of remanding the matter, the concerned authority has not furnished the copies of documents as requested by him and therefore, the assessment is incorrect. He relied on a decision reported in M/S VOLTAS LTD. V VOLTAS AND VOLKAR EMPLOYEES UNION, BANGALORE [1], wherein it was held thus: “We therefore, confirm the finding of the Tribunal on the first issue and remit the matter back to it for a fresh consideration of the second issue in the light of the judgment of this Court in Killick Nixon’s case (AIR 1975 SC 1778). There will be no order as to costs. Pending the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant shall pay dearness allowance to the workmen at the Bombay rate. From out of the amount deposited by the appellants before the Tribunal, the amount left after disbursal to the workmen shall be returned to the appellants. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within four months from the date of receipt of record by it.” The above decision has no application at all for the purpose of adjudication of dispute involved. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the entertainment tax was assessed basing on the admitted tax paid by the petitioner and the actual number of shows screened, that the returns submitted by the petitioner are not disputed by the department and as they have found to be correct, the department assessed the tax under Section 9 of the Act, that as there is no question of law involved as required under Section 9-D of the Act, the revisions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of remandingP order passed by the A.D.C., no records were made available to the petitioner so as to substantiate his case before the primary authority. On this aspect, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the disputed period is from 01-01-1984 to 15-01-1987 and that the gross collection capacity of the theatre as on 01-01-1984 is admitted by the petitioner in his own affidavit filed before this Court. In view of the fact that the petitioner himself admitted about the gross collection capacity of the theatre, there need not be any necessity to furnish the returns or DCRs to the petitioner. The primary authority determined the tax basing on the actual number of shows screened on the basis of the each show tax paid by the petitioner for every week. Even the petitioner did not dispute or deny about the payment of tax paid by him. Basing on the admitted tax paid by the petitioner, the primary authority arrived at actual number of shows screened and basing on the gross collection capacity from the beginning of the disputed period the entertainment tax was assessed. The question of furnishing any documents to the petitioner may not be necessary unless it is shown that the returns submitted by him are shown to be tampered with by the officials. It is not the case where the returned submitted by him are tampered with by the officials of Commercial Tax Department. 6. Under Section 9 of the Act every proprietor of an entertainment shall submit such returns relating to payments for entertainment tax, to such authority, in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of sub-section (1), the petitioner has submitted returns. Under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, if the prescribed authority is satisfied that any return submitted under sub-section (1) is correct and complete, it shall assess the amount of tax payable by the proprietor on the basis thereof. The authority has not disputed about the correctness or otherwise of the returns submitted by the petitioner. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 16 of the Rules, which reads that on receipt of the returns in Form VI, the assessing authority shall, if he is satisfied after such scrutiny of the accounts and after making such enquiry as he considers necessary, that the return is correct and complete, finally assess on the basis of the return the tax or taxes payable to be assessed under the Act for each quarter. Once the returns of the petitioner are accepted as correct, then the prescribed authority has to assess the amount of tax. Precisely the assessing authority assessed the amount of tax basing on the returns submitted by the petitioner. The E.T.O. has not assessed the entertainment tax otherwise than the returns submitted by the petitioner. The E.T.O. has not disputed about the returns submitted by the petitioner. 7. In view of the fact that the petitioner himself admitted in the affidavit filed before this Court about the gross collection capacity of the theatre as on 01-01-1984, the said admission can be taken as relevant as per Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Admission of a party is liable to be considered as a substantive evidence, when it is not explained by him. It can be said that an admission is a relevant piece of evidence, but it never be considered as conclusive proof. But at the same time, it is open to petitioner to explain or clarify under what circumstances it was made or to prove that what was stated did not reflect the true state of affairs. The petitioner has not given any explanation or clarification for the said admission. Therefore, admitted fact need not be proved as required under Section 58 of the Evidence Act. The appellate authority after taking into consideration all the aspects, determined the entertainment tax. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was denied for going through the documents and that the returns submitted by him are tampered with. So in the absence of any evidence, the primary authority assessed the tax basing on the returns submitted by the petitioner himself. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court as there is no question of law involved. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 10-02-2011 Hsd [1] AIR 1976 SC 2439