Raghuraj Theatre vs The State of Haryana and Others

V.K. Bali, J.—The limited question that needs adjudication in this petition is as to whether the proviso attached to Section 15 of the Punjab Entertainment Tax (Cinematograph Shows) Act, 1954 is attracted to the facts of the present case. The question, referred to above, arises from the facts which need a brief mention.

Petitioner is running a cinema hall at Gharaunda, District Karnal. The same was inspected by the Excise & Taxation-cum-Entertainment Officer along with other staff on December 4, 1989. Even though the visitors; to the cinema were found in possession of proper tickets, from the cooler room certain stamps and tickets, both used and unused, were taken into possession. On calculation, it was found that the petitioner had evaded duty to the extent of Rs. 4232/- on various counts, fully detailed in order, Annexure P-5, passed by Shri Bhaskar Chhaterji, IAS, Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh. After following proper procedure and recording evidence, following penalties were imposed on the petitioner :-

"Penalty of Rs. 42,320/- u/s 15 of the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1855;

(ii) Penalty of Rs, 1000/- u/s 15(c) of the said Act;

(iii) Evasion of show tax amounting to Rs. 380.92/-

(iv) Penalty of Rs. 1000/- u/s 14(i)(b) of the said Act."

Mr. R.M. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contends that the petitioner is liable to be imposed penalty not exceeding Rs. 2000/- in addition to the duty due as is mentioned in Section 15 and the proviso attached to the said Section is wholly in-applicable to the present case. It is being argued on the basis, that concededly all the persons, who were found viewing the cinema were having proper tickets and the word ''entry'' mentioned in the proviso relates to only a current show that may be going on at the time when inspection is made.

With a view to appreciate the controversy, it shall be useful to reproduce Section 15 of the said Act which runs thus :-

"15 :- Offences and penalties :- If the Proprietors of an entertainment :-

(a) fraudulently evades the payment of any duty due under this Act; or

(b) obstructs any officer making an inspection search or seizure under this Act; or

(c) acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made, order issued, or direction given, thereunder.

He shall be liable to the imposition of a penalty not exceeding two thousand rupees in addition to the duty due, if any ;

Provided that in the case of the free surreptitious, unauthorised or concessional entry, whether with or without the knowledge of the proprietor, the proprietor shall be liable to the imposition of "a penalty, in addition to the amount of duty, not exceeding five hundred rupees or twenty-five times the amount of duty found to be due as a result of such entry/whichever is greater."

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, this Court is however, of the view that the sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, noted above, lacks merit and, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. The word ''entry'' mentioned in the proviso attached to Section 15 can not relate to a current show only. If from evidence it is proved that duty was evaded, then it is immaterial if the entry was made at the time of inspection or earlier in point of time. The word ''entry'' is not preceded with the word ''current show'' or "the show going on" at the time of inspection. The Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can not supply the words to a statute which are not there, as mentioned above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.