V. K. SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes Department, Kota, dated August 6, 1992 and that of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated October 20, 1993, challenging the amount fixed by way of composition.
(2.) THERE is a scheme under the Rajasthan Entertainments and Advertisements Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act of 1957"), by which, instead of making the payment on each of the tickets for the customers visiting the cinema the composition can be made for one year. In pursuance of the Cabinet decision dated July 8, 1982, the said scheme has been framed under section 6 (3) of the Act of 1957. The petitioner moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) on March 28, 1992 that the rates are to be increased from May 1, 1992 as mentioned in the said letter. THEREafter, another letter dated July 30, 1992 was sent in which it was mentioned that because the permission was not received therefor, the rates have not been increased and they shall be informing the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) with regard to increase of rate. The Deputy Commissioner has taken into consideration the increase of rate as mentioned in the letter dated March 28, 1992 but has not considered the averments made in the letter dated July 30, 1992 and fixed the amount of composition. An application for rectification was also moved but the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) refused to reduce the amount of composition. In the revision preferred before the Additional Commissioner under the Act of 1957, it was observed that the order of composition was passed on the admission and application of the petitioner and, therefore, no interference is required in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration ). The revision was dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities under the said Act have ignored the letter dated July 30, 1992 and the petitioner has in fact not collected the enhanced rate as mentioned in the earlier letter dated March 28, 1992. It is submitted that even otherwise there was a mistake in the calculation of the amount which has also not been taken into consideration. An opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the respondent to verify the fact as to whether the petitioner has in fact collected the amount during the period for which it is submitted that the enhanced rates were not enforced and, therefore the amount was collected at the reduced rate. The learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that there is nothing on record from it could be presumed that during that period the amount was collected at the enhanced rate. His submission is that the order of composition has been passed on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner and, therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court. It is also submitted that the calculation mistake as alleged exists in the order and the order could be rectified only to that extent. I have considered over the matter. It is not a case where the order has been passed only on the admission of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner has himself subsequently informed the respondents that because the permission was not received the enhanced rates were not enforced. The respondents are bound to take into consideration the subsequent letter submitted and should have made the enquiry or there should have been any evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the entrance fee was charged from a spectator at the enhanced rate and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner could not have been considered since the amount of composition was also to be fixed on the basis of the criteria given in the scheme itself. If the amount is fixed on the basis of the enhanced rate then it was also open to the respondents to come to that conclusion but that could have been possible only if there was anything on record to prove that the enhanced rate of entrance fee was charged by the petitioner. Since there was nothing on record to prove that the enhanced rate charged for the period as mentioned by the petitioner it was not proper to fix the composition fee.
(3.) SO far as the other mistake is concerned, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the mistake exists in the calculation also. In these circumstances, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) and the Additional Commissioner are set aside and the matter is sent back for re-calculation of the amount of composition. The respondents would charge the composition fee on the basis of old rate from May 1 to October 31, 1992 and so far as the period from November 1 is concerned, the amount as fixed shall remain as such subject to the corrections and calculations as above. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Writ petition allowed. .;