TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the excess entertainment tax collected from cinema-goers and paid over to the State belonged to the proprietor so as to entitle him to recover it from the Government.
Analysis: Under the Madras Entertainments Tax Act, the tax was levied on each admission but was recoverable from the proprietor as the statutory collecting agency. The amount collected from the public as entertainment tax was not the proprietor's own money; it was collected on behalf of the State for payment over to the Government. Where the tax collected exceeded the amount legally due, the excess belonged to the persons who paid it and not to the collecting proprietor. As the appellant had no proprietary interest in the excess amount, he could not assert a claim for refund against the Government.
Conclusion: The claim for recovery was not maintainable and was rightly rejected; the issue is answered against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellant, having collected the amount as statutory collector for the State, had no right to recover the alleged excess from the Government.
Ratio Decidendi: Money collected by a statutory collecting agent as tax on behalf of the State does not become the collector's property, and any excess collection is recoverable by the payer, not by the collector.
TaxTMI 
