Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a demand notice issued at the earlier higher rate of entertainment tax could be sustained after the Court had already held that the assessee was entitled to pay tax at the reduced rate from the date of reduction in seating capacity, despite the retrospective amendment of the relevant rule.
Analysis: The assessee had obtained a reduction in seating capacity and, on that basis, a reduced weekly tax liability under section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 was recognised. The Court had earlier decided that the reduced rate was payable from the date of reduction till the end of the financial year. A later retrospective amendment to rule 27(10) of the A.P. Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939 did not contain any validating provision authorising a demand contrary to that binding decision. A retrospective amendment, by itself, could not permit the authorities to disregard the final judgment or revive a demand that the Court had already held to be incorrect.
Conclusion: The impugned demand notice was illegal and invalid and was quashed; the writ petition was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective amendment to subordinate legislation cannot authorise recovery contrary to a final judicial decision unless the amendment expressly validates such recovery.