Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

🚨 Important Update for Our Users

We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.

⚠️ This portal will be discontinued soon

  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2017 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password



 

2017 (2) TMI 1230 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues:
1. Excess collections of admission fee and penalty imposed on petitioner.
2. Validity of the order dated 01-02-2016 by the first respondent.
3. Application of Section 5-G of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Act, 1939 for penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged an order directing the petitioner to refund excess collections of admission fees for movie tickets and pay a penalty. The excess amount was found to be Rs. 8,92,862, with an additional penalty of Rs. 13,39,293. The order was based on an inspection revealing the petitioner collected entertainment tax from viewers for a tax-exempt movie. Notices were issued, and the petitioner's replies were considered, leading to the impugned order.

2. The impugned order detailed the excess collections based on ticket rates and unissued tickets found during inspection. The petitioner disputed the findings, claiming the seized tickets did not belong to their theater and were properly accounted for in their returns. The first respondent relied on the judgment in K. Viswanathan Vs. State of Madras to justify the directive for excess payment and penalty imposition.

3. The petitioner contended that the excess amount was not collected against issued tickets, rendering the directive illegal. They also argued that Section 5-G of the Act, allowing penalty imposition for unlicensed film exhibitions, was inapplicable to their case. The Government Advocates defended the order, stating the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the excess cash found during inspection.

4. Upon review, the Court found the petitioner unable to explain the discrepancies in the calculations provided by the first respondent, leading to the conclusion that the excess cash found was indeed from ticket sales. The Court upheld the directive for the excess payment but set aside the penalty imposition, acknowledging that Section 5-G did not apply in this scenario.

5. In conclusion, the writ petition was partially allowed, with the penalty being revoked while the directive for excess payment was upheld. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed without any costs being awarded.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates