Bombay High Court
Basaweshwar Sambhappa Deokar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 22 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:28590
34-WP-4361-14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4361 OF 2014
Basaweshwar Sambhappa Deokar ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra and Others ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. M.D. Shinde, Advocate h/f Mr. G.V. Sukale and Mr. A.A. Khade, Advocates
for the petitioner
Ms V.S. Chaudhari, A.G.P. for respondents
....
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned orders and the record.
2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 26 th June 2013, passed by Respondent No.1, thereby confirming the order dated 09th July 2012, passed by Respondent No.3, and modifying the order dated 27th February 2012, passed by Respondent No.2.
3. In brief, the facts are as follows :-
The petitioner applied to Respondent No.2 for obtaining permission under Section 4(2)(B) of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923, for running the business as a cable operator for the year 2000 and 1 / 7 34-WP-4361-14.odt pursuant to the permission, he was running the business as a cable operator. Initially, there were 181 connections with the petitioner. By application dated 22nd May, 2007, the petitioner informed Respondent No.4 and Mandal Adhikari, Sengaon, that a total of 94 connections have been reduced to date, hence requested to make an enquiry and impose the tax accordingly from 01 st April, 2007. Pursuant to the said letter, on 17 th March, 2008, Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Sengaon, has carried out panchanama and asked the petitioner to furnish a list of the cable holders and pay the tax amount. However, the petitioner failed to supply the said list and has not paid the tax, and therefore, the Tahsildar sealed the cable operating unit and thereby stopped the network telecasting. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents and requested them to remove the seal.
4. On 06th September, 2008, Respondent No.2 had issued a notice to the petitioner directing him to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,090/- with interest. In response to the notice, on 13th October, 2008, the petitioner submitted his explanation that since 17.03,2008, the cable operating unit has been sealed. Therefore, network telecasting has been stopped. No one has broken the seal, and the same is kept as it is. Thereafter, on 24 th November 2008, the Respondent No.2 issued a letter directing the petitioner to file an affidavit and a list of Prapatra "A", which was not replied to by the petitioner. However, it is contended that the network telecasting was stopped due to the seal; therefore, the question does not arise to pay the said amount. By letter 2 / 7 34-WP-4361-14.odt dated 01st December 2008, the Respondent No.2 informed the petitioner to get the license/certificate for operating the cable network renewed. However, due to the closure of the business, the petitioner could not renew it.
5. On 07th March, 2009, the Respondent No.4 issued a notice to the petitioner and called upon him to deposit the arrears of the entertainment tax amount within three days. Then, by notice dated 23 rd September, 2009, the Respondent No.2 again called upon him to pay the arrears of the entertainment tax amount of Rs. 44,240/-. In response to the same, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 26,005/- with the respondents and accordingly by letter dated 29th September, 2010, requested the Respondent No. 2 to permit him to start the telecasting of the cable and also showed his readiness to deposit the balance arrears amount. Then, again, the respondents issued notices dated 26th August, 2011 and 12th September, 2011, asking the petitioner to deposit the arrears of charges for the network telecasting. The petitioner neither replied to the said notices nor deposited the charges. However, he continued to network telecasting unauthorizedly, so respondent No.2 initiated the proceeding against him.
6. The Respondent No.2 - Additional Collector, after considering the material produced before him by the Circle Inspector, by order dated 27 th February, 2012, directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of the entertainment tax amount of Rs. 1,82,895/- along with interest of Rs. 2,74,344/- totalling to Rs. 4,57,239/- within eight days.
3 / 7
34-WP-4361-14.odt
7. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, who, after hearing the parties and appreciating the material before it, held that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 2,59,160/- only and accordingly partly allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by Respondent No.2 - Additional Collector.
8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1- Secretary and Special Duty Officer (Appeals), Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya; however, the appeal was dismissed. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred this petition.
9. After hearing at length, a query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner to point out the list of cable holders he submitted to the authorities or produce the same here. He failed to point out the same from the record or produce the same. Moreover, he failed to show the existence of the said list. Similarly, he failed to point out how many people he provided with cable connections and how many cable connections he made to telecast the cable network. Likewise, communication dated 22 nd May, 2007, only reveals that the petitioner had 181 connections, out of which 94 connections have been reduced due to the unauthorised cable network. He has not provided a list of the said cable holders, so he reduced the number of cable connections. Thus, the said application appears vague in this regard. Also, by the panchanama dated 17th March, 2008, the petitioner was asked to produce the list of the cable holders, but he refused to produce the same on record. 4 / 7
34-WP-4361-14.odt
10. The report submitted by the Circle Inspector and Tahsildar before Respondent No.2 also reflects that network telecasting continued despite the authority sealing the cable operating unit.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant, though contended that after sealing of the cable operating unit, he never continued with the said business nor collected any amount from the customers, it is pertinent to note that the respondents have issued him notice to pay the arrears of the cable connection fees/the entertainment taxes. At that time, he had paid the respondents Rs. 26,005/-. Had it been the fact that if the cable operation unit had not continued, certainly he would not have deposited the same.
12. It further appears that vide notice dated 20th December, 2010, the petitioner was called upon by the respondents to explain as to why a fine under Section 9(A)(B) of the said Act shall not be imposed upon him and also to remain present for the hearing. Thereafter, another notice was issued on 11th January, 2011. However, the petitioner failed to reply to the said notices. Not responding to the notices or not filing his explanation that he is not running the business of cable network telecasting leads to drawing an adverse inference that what has been alleged by the respondent authority in the notice is true. Had it been the fact that he would not have run the cable operation business, then indeed he would have replied to the said notices stating that due to the seal to the cable operating unit, he could not operate 5 / 7 34-WP-4361-14.odt the same. But, he has not filed any reply nor filed any affidavit as asked by the authorities, and therefore, the said conduct leads to the drawing of an adverse inference against him.
13. Apart from that, the report dated 29.03.2008 submitted by the Talathi, Pankhnergaon, to the Tahsildar indicates that despite the seal to the cable operating unit, the network telecasting was going on unauthorizedly. Therefore, the respondents replied that the network telecasting was going on unauthorizedly despite the seal to the cable operating unit. Continuation of the network telecasting itself denotes that someone was running the same unauthorizedly. It was incumbent on the petitioner to explain who was running the said cable operating unit. The adverse inference can be drawn without his explanation that he was running the said cable operating unit unauthorizedly, though the authorities sealed it.
14. Thus, having considered the above discussion and facts on record, it is apparent that the petitioner was running the cable operating unit. However, he failed to produce the list of cable holders before the authorities. Similarly, he neither replied to the notices issued by the authorities nor gave any explanation about the said notices. Therefore, it is evident from the record that despite the seal to the cable operating unit, telecasting of the cable was continued unauthorizedly. Thus, the authorities charged the entertainment tax/fees on the unauthorised cable unit operation. In such an eventuality, I do not find substance in the contentions raised by learned 6 / 7 34-WP-4361-14.odt counsel for the petitioner that he was not running the cable operating unit, nor has he replied to pay the entertainment tax/arrears.
15. As a result, the petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
16. Needless to clarify, the authorities may consider the petitioner's request not to impose interest or penalty on the amount they determined for the period under litigation, as he was challenging the orders passed by the authorities before the Divisional Commissioner, appellate authority, and this Court.
( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ) SSD 7 / 7