a, r: ;. S§N$LE BENCH : HQN’BLE SHE) SR. NAVAK, Cd. 1 Writ Petiiien No.5608 GF .998 @ETE?3QNER$ i. 1. KM. Rath S/o Shyi Manikfaiji Rathi, Aged about 65 years, Prcpr§etor, Raj Taiks‘ Raipur (M..} ie P r/c &uty PM, Amravati (MS) 2. Ra Talkies, Raipur j Through : its Manager RT. Jcrshi, SEQ Shri Tajmal dashi, Aged 50 years‘ Ra§pur (M?) Stme of Madhya Pyadesh, Through : Secreiary‘, Separaie Revenue Department, Bhcpai K Vs. 4. 2. Commissioner Exc'iae, Motimahai, Gwaiior (MR) 3. District Excise Off§cer, Raipuy (MR) Present : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned counse! for the petitioners Shri Yas'nwan‘t Singh, iearned GA. for the State. QRAL §REER (PaSSed on 22m June 2006) A short qaestion that arises for c‘’aecision is whethei the Disirist Excise Officer, ihird {aspsndent herein, Raipar having aiiowed an ap§iication fiied by the petitiorrers to avail 0f the faciii'iy unrier Ciause (d) sf Sectian 4(2) 9f MP. Eratertainment Quty and; Advertisement Tax Aci, 1935 {ier short ‘the Ac?) was iusiiried in resiriciing the faciiiiy fer the periad csmmencing from 07-12498‘67 i0 3i—3—18g9 oniy during ihe "inanciai yegriQQS-Sig. T?iis case 11-35 had a checkered histery. initiaiiy, the eppiicarieri made by ihe petitioner ‘ on 27~05—98 under rhe afaremeniioried provision 9f the Act was rejected by the District Excise HIGH GOURT OF JUDECATURE $HHA?T!$GARH : BILASPUR RE8PGNBENT$ : Officer, thiyd Fespsnéent herein, on 29-06-1938 cr‘ the greund that the petitioner oughé to have made the appEcaiEan at the beginning of the financéa! year 19$8-99 and mt in the cowae cf the said financiaE year. The con‘ectness of that cpinz‘an of the tnérd re$pondent waS assailed before the H§gn Qourt e? MP. in WP. Ne 2854 of 1998. The MP. High Court afiowed the saicE wnt petition 0n 05—iQ-19Q8 and Set aside the Meier e‘i the Excise Commissioner, the eecend respondent herein, and remanded the preceedings directing that the appiication of the petitioners snouid be deaii with in accordance wiin iaw. (2) After the remand 0f the proceedings; it appears that the application 0f the petitioner was considered by the Excise Commissioner and by hi5 order dated 05-? 1-1998 aiiowed the eppiication of the petitioners, but, he restricted the feciiity to pay the tax under Cieuse (ch 0f Section 4(2) of the Act to the period commencing from Q74 1-1998 to 31-03-1999. A copy of the said oréer is merked as Annexure Pf5. The said order was communicated by the third respondent to the petitioners as per Annexure P/6. {3) i have heard iearned counsei for the parties. it was contended by the petitioners that since the petitioners made the appiication for the facility of paying the tax by the mode as envisaged under the Clause {do for the entire financial year 1988-99, that faciiity ought to have been granted by the second respondent from 01-04-1998 to 31-03-1999 and there was absolutely no justihcation for the second respondent to restrict the facility in terrns of Ciause (d) only for the period commencing from 07- 114998 to 33—03-1999. Learned Govt. Advocate, per contra, would support the impugned order. \ @ (4) Having heard learned counsei for the parties, £ am of the considered opinion that the arder of the second respondent in restrictive the faciiity of paying the tax in terms 0f Clause (d) oniy for the period from 97-1 1-1 99$ to 31~Q3—1. 999’, in the facts and circumstances cf the case, is tetally unjustified and arhitrary. Ciause (d) of Section 4(2) of the Act undeniabiy provides for granting faciiity fer each tinanciai year. in the appiication made by the petitioner, admittediy, he sought the faciiity te pay tex in terms of the Cteuse (d) for the entire period of $98-99 financiai year, that is to say, from 01-044998 to 3t 03-1999. Simply because due to wrong actien on the part of the third reepcndent in rejecting the application of the petitioners and that ted ta avoidable iittgations, that circumstance cannot be put against the petitioners to deny them the facility of paying the tax in terms. of Clause (d) procedure. The impugned action of the third respondent, therefore, cannot be sustained under Article 14 postulates. The writ petition is, therefore, ailowed a direction ’shall iesue to the respondents to extend the facility of paytng entertainment tax in terms of Cianse (d) of $ection 4(2) of the Act to the petitioners for a period commencing from 01-04-1998 to 31-034 999. ln ‘ the‘faots and circumstances of the case, the parties shat! bear their reepeotive costs. #K Sdl- Chief Jusu'ce