Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Income Tax Reassessment, Directs Petitioner to File Appeal Adultery Requires Proof of Sexual Relations, Mere Emotional Attachment is No Ground to Deny Maintenance: MP High Court Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal When Best Evidence is Withheld, an Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn Against the Prosecution: Supreme Court Slams State for Procedural Lapses When the State Itself Did Not Challenge the Earlier Judgment, Third Parties Cannot Litigate on Its Behalf: Supreme Court When Parties Have Agreed to a Fixed Compensation, Courts Cannot Rewrite the Contract to Award Additional Damages: Supreme Court When an Employer Deprives an Employee of Work Through Illegal Action, They Must Face the Consequences: Supreme Court Condemns State Transport Corporation’s “Fraud on Court” Possession Handed Over Before the Sale Deed Makes the Agreement a Conveyance: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Stamp Duty Demand Promissory Estoppel Cannot Override Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds Goa’s Power Tariff Rebate Withdrawal Tenants Cannot Stall Public Projects Indefinitely; Eviction Under MRTP Act is Legally Valid: Bombay High Court High Court Cannot Reassess Labour Court's Findings Like an Appellate Body: Delhi HC Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court An Injured Witness Comes with a Built-In Guarantee of Truth: Allahabad HC Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal Limitation | An Educated Litigant Cannot Claim the Same Protection as an Illiterate One: Delhi HC Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against BundlePe & LatePe Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court SARFASI | Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Essential in SARFAESI Matters: Kerala High Court Once Penalty Period Ends, Employee Must Be Reconsidered for Promotion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

04 February 2025 11:18 AM

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