Unjust enrichment in entertainment duty: excess collected from patrons during a concession cannot be retained without statutory authority.

A fiscal concession limiting entertainment duty to multiplex proprietors did not authorise retention of duty collected from patrons in excess of the amount legally payable. The Court applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment, holding that where the statute fixes a reduced duty during the concessional period, the collector cannot keep the higher amount merely because the ticket reflected it. The excess collected from cinema-goers was recoverable by the State in the absence of express statutory authority to retain it, and the demand was sustained to that extent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the multiplex proprietor, having collected entertainment duty at the full rate from patrons during the concessional period, could retain the excess amount or whether the State was entitled to recover it on the basis of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The scheme under section 3(13)(a) of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 granted a limited concession in duty to multiplex theatre proprietors for five years, with the levy and collection during the second two-year period restricted to 25% of the normal duty. The charging provisions and the rules distinguished between the duty legally payable to the State and the admission amount collected from cinema-goers. The Court held that the proprietor had in fact collected the full duty component from patrons, and that the concession did not create any right to appropriate the excess merely because the ticket format reflected the higher amount. The principle against unjust enrichment applied, since a person cannot collect duty from the consumer and also avoid passing it on to the State when the statute does not authorize retention of the excess.

Conclusion: The State was entitled to recover the amount corresponding to the excess retained by the proprietor during the concessional period.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the demand was sustained to the extent of the amount unjustly retained, with further directions for its application for public benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal concession limits the duty legally payable, any excess duty collected from consumers cannot be retained by the collector in the absence of express statutory authorization, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment permits recovery of that excess.

---