RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) BY means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.9.2008 passed by the State Government in ap­peal filed by the petitioner under section 12 (2) of U.P. Entertainment and Betting Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") against the order of the District Magistrate, Bareilly dated 12.10.2006.
(2.) PETITIONER is running cable network under the name and style, Saif Cable T.V. Network, Bareilly. Petitioner claimed that the business of cable network was started in the month of December, 2004 with 81 connections. However, the case of the respondent is that in the survey made in the month of July, 2003, 115 connections were found and it was found that the petitioner was carrying on the business since July, 2003. It is the case of the District Magistrate that after the survey, the petitioner was issued detailed show cause notice on 24.12.2004 stating therein that at the time of survey made in the July, 2003, 115 connections were found while the tax being deposited only for 81 connections. It has also been informed that the business is being carried on since July, 2003. No reply was filed to this notice. Further the notices were issued on 3.1.2005, 11.3.2005, 18.3.2006 and 8.9.2006 but the petitioner neither filed any reply nor appeared in the proceedings, therefore, ex parte order was passed on 12.10.2006 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,13,400/- alongwith interest for the period of July, 2003 to August, 2006. Being aggrieved by the order, petitioner filed ap­peal under section 12 (2) of the Act before the State Government, which has been dismissed vide order dated 12.9.2008. Heard Sri R.D. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner started the business from December, 2004 and not from July, 2003 and, therefore, the assessment made from July, 2003 on the basis of the alleged survey made in the month of July, 2003 is wholly unjustified. He further submitted that the survey was ex parte and the copy of the survey report has neither been pro­vided nor it has been confronted to the petitioner. Therefore, the adverse infer­ence drawn in wholly unjustified.;