Government Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Regular Pay-Scale to Employees Appointed on Sanctioned Posts: Supreme Court Extends Benefit to Special Recruitment Drive Employees Presumption Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act Is Not Automatic: Supreme Court Holds That Dowry Death Allegations Must Be Substantiated with Evidence Supreme Court Directs Immediate Implementation of Judicial Pay Revisions Demand for Dowry, in Any Form, is Unlawful and Condemnable: Supreme Court Affirms Guilt but Grants Relief Considering Passage of Time Baseless Accusations Destroy Marital Trust - False Allegations of Infidelity and Dowry Demand Amount to Mental Cruelty: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Decree Payment for Use of Goodwill is Not Illegal or Against Public Policy: Delhi High Court CIVIL BREACH CANNOT BE CRIMINALIZED: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT QUASHES CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN LOAN DISPUTE Rigours of Section 45 PMLA Cannot Eclipse Article 21’s Guarantee of Liberty When Trial Delays Exceed Reasonable Limits: Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Bank Chairman Seniority for Promotion Must Be Based on Feeder Category, Not Initial Appointment as Police Constable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Temporary Employment Does Not Disqualify Wife From Claiming Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC: Kerala High Court Right to Default Bail is a Fundamental Right; Cannot be Denied Due to Procedural Lapses:  Uttarakhand High Court Fraud Must Be Pleaded and Proved, Mere Allegation Insufficient: Telangana High Court Exclusion Without Justification Is Arbitrary: Tripura High Court Orders Equal Allowances for Jail Warders on Par with Police Personnel Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Jail Murder Case, Citing Insufficient Evidence of Conspiracy Patna High Court Upholds Exclusion of B.Tech Holders from Junior Engineer (Civil) Post, Dismisses Challenge to Bihar Recruitment Rules Matrimonial Dispute No Ground to Quash FIR If Prima Facie Case Exists: Madhya Pradesh High Court Notice of Dishonor is Non-Negotiable: High Court Dismisses Bank’s Recovery Suit for Procedural Lapse Madras High Court Dismisses ₹1842 Crores Recovery Claim by Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation as Time-Barred and Unsubstantiated Entertainment Tax Must Be Refunded on Unsold Tickets – High Court of Kerala Mere Non-Return of Money and Quarrel Does Not Constitute Abetment to Suicide Under Section 306 IPC: Karnataka High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Applies – Acquittal Cannot Be Overturned Without Evidence of Perversity: Gujarat High Court Consent Based on Deception is No Consent at All:  Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea for Discharge in False Promise of Marriage Case Employer’s Failure to Provide Records Cannot Deny Pension Entitlement: Calcutta High Court Orders PF Authorities to Consider Service Period for Pension Calculation Murder Conviction Set Aside as 'Sudden Quarrel'—Bombay High Court Modifies Sentence to Culpable Homicide" No Title, No Injunction: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Baptist Church Land Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC Protects Husband from Rape Charges: Supreme Court Quashes FIR After Marriage Found to be Consensual Mere Presence in a Government Office Does Not Mean Incident Occurred in Public View: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under SCST

Entertainment Tax Must Be Refunded on Unsold Tickets – High Court of Kerala

03 February 2025 3:13 PM

By: sayum


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has ruled in favor of the petitioner, JTPAC, directing the Maradu Municipality to refund the entertainment tax paid on unsold tickets for a music concert. The court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions governing tax levies.

The case involves JTPAC, a performance arts center under the Choice Foundation, which organized a music concert on October 14, 2016. The event was held within the jurisdiction of the Maradu Municipality, and the petitioner had produced 1,020 tickets priced at ₹600 each for stamping under the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act, 1961, and the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Rules, 1962. The petitioner paid a total of ₹1,77,182 in entertainment tax, service cess, and security deposit.

However, only 265 tickets were sold, leaving 755 unsold. JTPAC requested a refund of the tax paid on the unsold tickets. The Municipality refused, instead appropriating the tax amount to the Chairperson’s Distress Relief Fund. Despite agreeing to donate ₹10,000 to the Fund, the Municipality did not refund the entertainment tax, prompting JTPAC to file a writ petition.

The court examined the relevant sections of the 1961 Act and 1962 Rules, emphasizing that entertainment tax is levied only on tickets sold. Section 3 of the Act specifies the tax applies to payments for admission to entertainment, which necessitates actual ticket sales. The court cited a precedent, Municipal Council, Kottayam v. K. Mahadeva Iyer, which supports refunding the value of unused, unstamped tickets.

Justice Gopinath P. highlighted that taxation must be authorized by law. The appropriation of tax paid on unsold tickets to the Distress Relief Fund lacked statutory basis, violating Article 265 of the Constitution. The court remarked, “The tax can be levied only by authority of law, and any other appropriation would be unconstitutional.”

The High Court quashed the Municipality’s communications (Exhibits P4, P6, and P8) and directed the refund of entertainment tax paid on unsold tickets, after deducting the committed ₹10,000 donation to the Distress Relief Fund.

This ruling reinforces the principle that taxes must be levied and collected strictly according to statutory provisions. The judgment not only provides relief to JTPAC but also sets a precedent ensuring municipalities adhere to the legal framework in tax matters. The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional mandates and statutory interpretations in tax disputes.

Date of Decision: June 18, 2024

Similar News