- (1.) Since similar issues of facts and law are involved in these matters, they are being decided by this common judgement, treating STR No. 128/2013 as the lead case.
(2.) All these revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner-M/s. Citymax Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Jaipur. Petitioner-company carries on the activity of providing for a charge, games and indoor sports activities at its outlet known as Fun City located at Third Floor, MGF Mall, 22 Godam Circle, Jaipur. A survey was conducted by the officers of Anti Evasion Wing of the Commercial Taxes Department at its premises on 27.7.2010. The cause and reason of the survey was the activities carried out by the petitioner-company in providing opportunity of gaming and playing sports to visiting customers, which attracts liability under the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Act, 1957. Consequent upon survey, a consolidated notice was issued by the Assessing Authority to the petitioner company on 23.3.2011, proposing to assess the liability of entertainment tax for the period from October, 2007 to March, 2009. The assessment orders were passed by the competent authority on 31.3.2011 wherein a total receipt of Rs. 8,25,529 for the month of March, 2009, tax of Rs. 2,47,659, interest of Rs. 58,623 and penalty of Rs. 4,95,318, totaling to Rs. 8,01,600, came to be assessed. The assessment order accompanied with notice of demand was served upon the petitioner-company. Petitioner-company preferred appeal thereagainst before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur, who by order dated 7.12.2011 partly allowed the appeal and directed the Assessing Authority to bifurcate the revenues of petitioner-company into screen based and non-screen based video games and thereafter assess the tax liability of screen based video games and further determine whether entertainment tax would be leviable on non-screen based video games or not. The penalty levied of Rs. 4,95,318 was set aside on the ground that all the transactions were disclosed by the petitioner in its books of accounts and there was no concealment of revenue.
(3.) Aggrieved by part non-acceptance of appeal by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II), Jaipur, the petitioner-company preferred a further appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board. A counter appeal was also filed by the revenue against part acceptance of appeal by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II) setting aside the penalty. The learned Tax Board by the impugned judgement dated 28.3.2013 dismissed the the appeals filed by both the sides. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee-company has approached this Court in the present sales tax revision petitions.;