Vineet Saran, J.@mdashThe appellant petitioner has been organizing fashion shows in Bangalore. For the ''Bangalore Fashion Week'' show which was organized by the appellant from 2.2.2012 to 5.2.2012, the Department of Commercial Taxes issued a proposition notice dated 14.8.2013 under section 6A(3) of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958, proposing to impose 10% Entertainment Tax on sale of tickets of Rs. 55,000/- and sponsorship fees received to the tune of Rs. 47,50,000/-, totaling to Rs. 48,05,000/-. In response to the same, appellant filed its reply dated 24.10.2013. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.10.2014, Entertainment Tax at the rate of 10% on the said amount of Rs. 48,05,000/- was levied. Challenging the said order, appellant filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner, which was dismissed, not on merits but on the ground of the appellant not having deposited 50% of the disputed amount. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner/appellant filed a writ petition which has been dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy of statutory appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Challenging the said order of the learned single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed. We have heard Sri Shivaraj N. Arali, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Vedamurthy, learned Government Advocate for respondents and have perused the record. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal has been heard and is being disposed of at the admission stage.
2. In the writ petition, petitioner had challenged the proposition notice dated 14.8.2013 on the ground that various material, on which the Department relied upon, were not provided along with the notice. Besides that, the order passed by the assessing authority was also challenged, primarily on the ground that though the reply dated 24.10.2013 had been given to the proposition notice dated 14.8.2013, yet the same was neither discussed nor considered in the assessment order. The writ petition was primarily filed on the ground that the impugned order of assessment was not a speaking order and though opportunity to show-cause was given but, reply given by the petitioner to the notice was not considered and thus, the same would amount to clear violation of principles of natural justice. It has been submitted that merely issuing notice would not be sufficient unless the reply to the notice has been discussed and considered by the assessing authority in its order.
3. A plain reading of the assessment order goes to show that in the order it is acknowledged that the assessee had filed its objections ''which are gone through and found untenable''. Merely stating that the reply is untenable would not be sufficient. What was the reply to the show-cause notice and why the same was found to be untenable, has not been stated in the order. Learned counsel for the respondents could not justify the same and has fairly submitted that the Assessing Officer may be directed to pass a fresh order after considering the reply.
4. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the order of assessment dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Entertainment Tax Officer, IV Circle, Bangalore deserves to be quashed solely on the ground that it has not at all considered the objections filed by the appellant/assessee to the proposition notice dated 14.8.2013. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and quash the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Entertainment Tax Officer. The appellant is given liberty to file a further reply to the proposition notice dated 14.8.2013, raising all objections which have been raised in the writ petition, on or before 14th August, 2015. The Assessing Officer shall consider the reply and if necessary, give opportunity of hearing to the appellant/petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
