2017 (2) TMI 1230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent. 1.1 With consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 01-02-2016, passed by the first respondent. 2.1. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to make over the excess collections qua movie tickets sold by him. The impugned order is indicative of the fact that the petitioner has collected excess amounts towards admission fee, which are pegged at Rs. 8,92,862/- (Rupees Eight lakhs Ninety Two thousand Eight hundred Sixty Two Only). Apart from this, the impugned order has also mulcted the petitioner with penalty amounting to R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... rate is fixed as follows: Ist Class : Rs.39/- Per Person IInd Class : Rs.29/- Per Person IIIrd Class : Rs.19/- Per Person IVth Class : Rs.4/- Per Person But the inspecting officer, found that the owner of the theatre collected more than the admitted rate fixed by the authorities concerned and recorded statements from the persons who issued tickets and who admited into the theatre to see the movie. The officer has also collected unissued tickets found in the office which are as follows: Ist Class : Sl.No:3852 to 3900 Rs.80 Per ticket IInd Class : Sl.No:7186 to 7200 Rs.80 Per ticket IIIrd Class : Sl.No:14207 to 14300 Rs.80 Per ticket The unissued ticket proves that the thea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss was not collected against tickets issued and therefore, the directions to make over the excess payments is illegal. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that the stand taken in the reply dated 30-12-2015 has not been dealt with by the first respondent. 5. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 5-G of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Act, 1939, ('the Act' in short) could not have been involved to levy penalty. Therefore, the levy of penalty is completely unsustainable. 5.1. It is the learned counsel's submission that Section 5-G is a special provision, which allows for assessment, levy of tax and imposition of penalty only in case of unlicensed ....