- (1.) BY this petition, petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order, dated 25-1-1993, passed by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the U. P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) IN nutshell the petitioners' case is that on account of imposition of curfew, the petitioners were not in position to exhibit films in their cinema hall, despite that entertainment tax was imposed upon them. Representation was made to the respondent No. 2, but, while decid ing the petitioners representation vide, Annexure-7, dated 25-1-1993 this point was not taken into consideration that on account of imposition of curfew the petitioners could not exhibit films in their cinema hall. On earlier occasion also petitioners representation was not paid any heed by the respondent No. 2, with the result the petitioners had to file a writ petition before this Court, and, this Court, vide its order, dated 22-12-1992 directed the respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioners representation in the light of the fact that the curfew was imposed and, therefore, the petitioners are required to pay entertainment tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder.
(3.) HOWEVER, after the direction of this Court, petitioners representation appears to have been considered, vide Annexure-7, referred to above, but, a perusal of this document further demonstrates that this point has not been taken into consideration as to whether on account of curfew imposed by the District Magistrate petitioners are required to pay entertainment tax for that period. Thus, in our opinion, the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity inasmuch as the factual of imposition of curfew has not been taken into con sideration by the authorities. For this reason the order impugned, dated 25-1-1993 is set aside. The case is further remanded back to the res pondent No. 2 to consider the petitioners representation in the fact as to whether for the period when the curfew was imposed the petitioners were required to pay entertainment tax. It is further made clear that within a period of two months from today the petitioners representation will be decided by the respondent No. 2 after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. With these directions this petition is allowed. Petition allowed. .;