Schematic interpretation of entertainment tax levy upheld recovery of differential tax despite omission in amended provision.

The amended composition levy under section 4A of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act remained enforceable despite the 1985 omission of a fresh explanation on gross collection capacity, because the provision had to be read as part of the full statutory scheme. The court rejected a rigid literal reading that would create a vacuum and defeat the amendment's purpose, and applied schematic interpretation with the casus omissus principle to supply the missing reference. On that approach, the relevant date for theatres opting under the amended scheme was read as 15 February 1986, and recovery of the difference of tax was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the amendment of section 4A of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 by Act 3 of 1985, the recovery of difference of tax from cinema exhibitors was illegal because the amended provision did not contain a fresh explanation for determining gross collection capacity.

Analysis: The composition levy under section 4A was a scheme linked to the gross collection capacity of the theatre and the rate of admission prevailing at the relevant time. The omission to repeat the earlier explanatory formula after the 1985 amendment did not create a legal vacuum, because the statutory scheme had to be read as a whole and interpreted so as to give effect to the amended provision. A rigid literal reading would defeat the purpose of the amendment and produce an anomalous result. The explanation earlier attached to section 4A was part of the scheme, and the court applied a schematic interpretation and the principle of casus omissus to supply the missing reference by reading the relevant date as 15 February 1986 for theatres opting under the amended scheme.

Conclusion: The recovery of the difference of tax was lawful and the challenge to the notices failed.

---