Concessional entertainment duty under a multiplex incentive scheme cannot be expanded by ticket entries showing a higher duty component.

A multiplex incentive scheme under the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act limited the proprietor's duty liability during the concessional period to no duty for the first three years and 25% of the duty leviable for the next two years. The text explains that this concession related to the proprietor's statutory liability, not the ticket holder's position, and that printed ticket entries showing a higher duty component did not enlarge the State's recovery. The demand for full duty and interest was inconsistent with the scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether, during the concessional period under the multiplex incentive scheme, the State could demand entertainment duty at the full rate merely because the ticket showed the full duty component, or whether the proprietor remained liable only to the extent of 25% of the duty leviable.

Analysis: The concession introduced for multiplex theatre complexes was part of an incentive scheme enacted to promote construction of new cinema houses. The scheme under Section 3(13)(a) of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923 made the proprietor liable to pay no duty for the first three years and only 25% of the duty leviable for the next two years. The Court treated this as a concession in the liability to pay duty, not an exemption intended for the patron. The fact that tickets had been printed showing the higher prevailing duty did not alter the statutory liability, because the State could recover only what the statute authorised during the concession period. The demand for the full rate, together with interest, was therefore inconsistent with the scheme and could not be justified as unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The petitioner remained liable only to pay 25% of the duty leviable during the relevant concessional period, and the State could not demand the full 45% duty on the basis of the ticket entries.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand notices were liable to be quashed, and the multiplex operator's liability was confined to the concessional duty prescribed by the statute during the incentive period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute grants a concessional rate of duty to the proprietor under an incentive scheme, the State cannot recover more than the statutorily prescribed concessional liability merely because the ticket reflects a higher duty component, unless the statute expressly authorises such recovery.

---