TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether payment of entertainment tax to Panchayat Samiti under section 19A of the Rajasthan Entertainments and Advertisements Tax Act, 1957 discharged the assessee's liability so as to bar a second demand by the Commercial Taxes Officer for the same period; (ii) whether the Revenue could seek a direction to have the amount collected by the Panchayat Samiti transferred to the Commercial Taxes Department.
Issue (i): Whether payment of entertainment tax to Panchayat Samiti under section 19A of the Rajasthan Entertainments and Advertisements Tax Act, 1957 discharged the assessee's liability so as to bar a second demand by the Commercial Taxes Officer for the same period.
Analysis: Section 19A authorised Panchayat Samitis to collect entertainment tax within the notified block area. The assessee had paid tax to the Panchayat Samiti, which accepted the payment while the territorial controversy continued. The levy and collection were therefore not without authority of law. The Court distinguished cases where different taxing authorities levy different taxes under different enactments and held that, on the same enactment and for the same period, the State could not exact the same tax twice merely because there was uncertainty as to the correct collecting agency. Mere acquiescence by the assessee in payment to one authority did not defeat relief once the statutory obligation stood satisfied by actual payment.
Conclusion: Payment to the Panchayat Samiti discharged the assessee's liability, and the second demand by the Commercial Taxes Officer was not sustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could seek a direction to have the amount collected by the Panchayat Samiti transferred to the Commercial Taxes Department.
Analysis: The Panchayat Samiti was not a party before the Court, no hearing had been afforded to it, and the record did not establish that the collected amount could be diverted to another department. The Court also noted that such a direction would run contrary to the statutory scheme under which the Panchayat Samiti was entitled to collect and utilise the tax for local purposes after meeting collection expenses.
Conclusion: No direction for transfer of the tax collection to the Commercial Taxes Department was issued.
Final Conclusion: The revisions failed because the assessee's payment of entertainment tax to the Panchayat Samiti under the statutory scheme extinguished the liability for the same period, and the Revenue could not recover the same tax again or seek inter-departmental reallocation through these proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute authorises collection of the same tax by a designated local authority for a specified area, actual payment and acceptance of that tax under the statute discharges the taxpayer's liability for that period, and a second demand for the same tax under the same enactment is impermissible.
TaxTMI 
