THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6694 OF 2004 DATED: 10-02-2011 Between: M/s Shiva Shankar Picture Palace, Rep.by its partner, Khammam. .... PETITIONER And The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Entertainment Tax)/The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Warangal & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 31.03.2003, of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Warangal, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order, dated 28.12.2002, in G.I.No.C5/AGHT/02-03/27/6/02 to 29/8/02 of the Entertainment Tax Officer-2nd respondent, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein is a partner of M/s Shiva Shankar Picture Palace, Khammam. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the 2nd respondent on 23.12.2002. In the said show cause notice, seven days time was given for filing objections. According to the petitioner, he submitted his objections along with a letter, dated 28.12.2002, and the same was received at the office of the 2nd respondent on 30.12.2002. However, 2nd respondent, without considering the objections and without even waiting for the expiry of the period of seven days, passed an order on 28-12-2002, which was served on the petitioner on 02-01-2003, confirming the payment of Rs.17,870/- being the balance tax. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the 1st respondent by the impugned order, dated 31.03.2003, which appears to be in a format filling few blanks, rejected the same on the ground that proof of payment of 12.5% tax on the disputed tax of Rs.22,341/- was not produced. In the said order, it is stated that the petitioner has failed to fulfill the requirement under Section 19 (1) of he Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) and failed to produce the proof of payment of 12.5% of tax. It is to be noted that the present appeal is filed under Section 9-D of the A.P.Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, but not under the provisions of Section 19 (1) of the Act. The usage of cyclostyle format for disposal of the appeals uniformly for all the appeals arising under different enactments appears to have led to the situation where totally inapplicable provision came to be extracted in the impugned order. 4. Section 9-D of the A.P.Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 merely refers to renders payment of fee at the rate of 1% of the tax under dispute, subject to maximum of Rs.50/- which amount has admittedly been paid by the petitioner while preferring the appeal. The said provision does not contemplate payment of tax at 12.5% as required under Section 19 (1) of the Act. The rejection of the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement under Section 19(1) of the Act is not at all applicable to the facts of the case. The appeal having been filed under Section 9-B of the A.P.Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, is totally unwarranted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Section 9-B (v) of the A.P.Entertainment Tax Act contemplates giving of an opportunity to the appellant of being heard before passing any order in the appeal. 6. It is stated that no notice is served on the petitioner intimating the date of hearing of the appeal and as such no opportunity of being heard was given. In the circumstances, it is considered reasonable to remit the matter back to the 1st respondent–appellate authority to dispose of the appeal afresh on merits after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein. 7. The impugned order is therefore held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th February, 2011. Tsy