TAJ HOTELS (J&K) PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS pray for setting aside the order dated 21 -11 -1983 for the accounting year 1980 -81 and assessment year 1981 -82 as also notice of demand dated 21 -11 -1983 under form HT...13 issued by respondent no. 2 under Jammu and Kashmir Hotel (Amenities and Services) Tariff Taxation Act, 1980.

(2.) THE first petitioner is said to be a private limited company and it had entered into certain tentative arrangements with Begum Salima Nedu and Mr. Omar Khalil, owners of Hotel Nedous, Srinagar and Hotel, Nedous, Gulmarg in respect of the business conducted in the said hotels. The arrangements between the owners of Nedous Hotel and petitioner no. 1 had fallen through and had not materialised. The Jammu and Kashmir Hotel (Amenities & Services) Tariff Taxation Act, 1980 in short to be referred to as the Act, came into force with effect from 1 -7 -1980, whereby a tax was imposed on every hotel...keeper on amenities and services provided to its residents or casual visitors on the basis of tariff at the rate specified in the Schedule annexed to the Act The said Act came to be unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner in the High Court. However, the said Act was repealed with effect from 13 -8 -1983 by a subsequent amendment called Jammu & Kashmir Hotel (Amentites & Services) Tariff Taxation (Repeal) Act 1983, which will be referred to as the Repealing Act. The petitioner is said to have received a notice for the period from 1 -1 -1980 to 19 -4 1981 informing him that business at Gulmarg Hotel Srinagar by them was conducted to tune of Rs. 19, 73, 438. 37. Petitioner was asked to file returns and deposit tariff tax for this period. The letter addressed in this behalf is dated 23 -9 -1983. The said letter was replied by the petitioner through his counsel from Delhi and it was stated that petitioner had no business on the property known as Nedou Hotels at Srinagar and Gulmarg. There were only tentative arrangements between the owners of the hotels, and the petitioner which did not materialise. The petitioner did not at all manage the said business Petitioner had shown inability to file the return and pointed out that Act had already been repleaed. Proceedings against them could not be conducted. Respondent no, 2 has also sent another letter to the petitioner dated 22 -10 -1983 fixing the date before him for 27 -10 -1983 without informing the petitioner to make arrangements to represent the case at Srinagar before respondent no. 2 on that date. The petitioners lawyer from Delhi had by telegram asked the respondent no. 2 to given further time in the matter. No reply was received by the petitioner but on 21 -11 -1983 a demand notice for Rs. 4, 32, 188/... was received by the petitioner from respondent., no. 2.

(3.) PETITIONERS grievance is that petitioners were not in forme1 about the date of 21 -11 -1983. That date was fixed at his back and he was not heard and the amount was arrived at without hearing the petitioner.