Municipal entertainment tax demand upheld where enabling provisions stood unchallenged and GST did not remove the levy.

A writ challenging a municipal entertainment tax demand was held not maintainable when the petitioner attacked only the consequential demand and did not assail the enabling provisions; the existence of an alternative statutory appellate remedy also weighed against interference. The municipality's authority to levy and collect entertainment tax after GST was upheld because the municipal enactment continued to retain that power under the relevant provisions, and the GST saving and modification clause did not displace the specific levy. The Court held that the tax was supported by authority of law and was not invalidated as double taxation on the facts. The challenge failed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the municipal demand for entertainment tax was maintainable when the petitioner did not challenge the enabling provisions; (ii) Whether the municipality had authority to collect entertainment tax after the introduction of GST.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the municipal demand for entertainment tax was maintainable when the petitioner did not challenge the enabling provisions.

Analysis: The challenge was directed only against the consequential demand. The enabling provisions under the municipal law were not assailed. A writ against a consequential demand, without questioning the source of power, was held to be not maintainable. The availability of a statutory appellate remedy also weighed against interference.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the municipality had authority to collect entertainment tax after the introduction of GST.

Analysis: Article 265 requires authority of law for levy and collection of tax. The municipal enactment continued to retain the power to levy entertainment tax under Section 118(1)(b)(ii) and Section 161. Section 173(1) of the GST enactment omitted only the advertisement tax clause, while Section 173(2) was held to be subject to the specific saving and modification in Section 173(1). The Court held that the municipal power to collect entertainment tax was not taken away, and that such levy was not subsumed under GST or rendered double taxation on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The municipality's collection of entertainment tax was held to be valid and within authority of law.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the entertainment tax demand failed in entirety, and the petition was dismissed with no relief granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute expressly retains a municipal power to levy entertainment tax, a general saving or modification clause in a later GST enactment will not nullify that specific levy unless the earlier taxing power is clearly omitted or repealed.

---