TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner was not able to explain the difference in the two products arrived at by the first respondent. The first product was arrived at by multiplying the number of tickets sold with the rates stipulated qua tickets, albeit, net of taxes, while the second product involved the multiplication of tickets sold by rates, which included the component of tax. The variation in the two products, according to the first respondent, was equivalent to the cash found, on inspection in the premises of the petitioner. This variation, the petitioner was not able to address in the reply. I find no error in the order - the theatre owner cannot illegally collect tax and, then, keep the proceeds with himself. Penalty - Held that: - the provision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss amount collected along with stipulated penalty within 15 days of its receipt. 2.3. The Record shows that the impugned order is based on an inspection carried out by the concerned Authority on 25-08-2015. The inspection, apparently, revealed that the petitioner was collecting the component of entertainment tax as well from the viewers, although, the subject movie had been exempted from tax. 2.4. Pre-assessment notices were issued in this behalf by the first respondent on 03-11-2015 and 07-12-2015. Apart from these notices, the District Collector, Coimbatore also issued a notice dated 10-09-2015, to the petitioner. The petitioner, evidently, has filed his replies dated 26-11-2015, 11-12-2015, 22-12-2015 and 30-12-2015. However, it ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Class : Sl.No:14207 to 14300 Rs.80 Per ticket The unissued ticket proves that the theatre owner has issued tickets upto the unused ticket No. for admission of the persons to see the movie. The collection of admitted amount and unadmitted amount are workedout and the excess collection of amount are as follows: Admission Rate Collected Ticket Issued Nos Total Value First Class Rate admitted Value Difference amount Ist Class Rs.80 3851 Rs.308080 Rs.39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e excess payments is illegal. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that the stand taken in the reply dated 30-12-2015 has not been dealt with by the first respondent. 5. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 5-G of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Act, 1939, ('the Act' in short) could not have been involved to levy penalty. Therefore, the levy of penalty is completely unsustainable. 5.1. It is the learned counsel's submission that Section 5-G is a special provision, which allows for assessment, levy of tax and imposition of penalty only in case of unlicensed exhibition of cinematograph films exhibited on Television via VCR or via Cable Television ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rates stipulated qua tickets, albeit, net of taxes, while the second product involved the multiplication of tickets sold by rates, which included the component of tax. The variation in the two products, according to the first respondent, was equivalent to the cash found, on inspection in the premises of the petitioner. This variation, the petitioner was not able to address in the reply. 7.3. Therefore, insofar as that part of the order is concerned, I find no error in the order, and therefore, as held by this Court in K.Viswanathan Vs. State of Madras, the theatre owner cannot illegally collect tax and, then, keep the proceeds with himself. 7.4. However, insofar as the levy of penalty is concerned, quite clearly, the provision invok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
