Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2012 (5) TMI 781

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnual exhibitions providing a platform for interaction between exporters and other jewellers as well as foreign buyers who visit the show. The Petitioner claims that these events are purely held on a business to business basis with exhibitors and visitors being primarily traders or manufacturers of gems and jewelery. According to the Petitioner, the members of the general public and individual customers are strictly banned from registering and entering the exhibitions. In order to scrutinize visitors, an application form has to be filled in and the entry fee is charged at a relatively high amount to encourage only business visitors. In the past the petitioner had paid entertainment duty under the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923. 2. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a further communication on 14 December 2011 to the second respondent since no decision was being taken. On 24 December 2011 the concerned police station at Vanrai insisted on an NOC from second respondent. On 3 January, 2012 the petitioner made payment of entertainment duty in the sum of Rs. 11.96 lakhs under protest. The second respondent granted an NOC and the event was held in the month of January 2012. The Petitioner sought a refund of an amount of Rs. 11.96 lakhs by a letter dated 24 January, 2012. On 17 March 2012 the impugned orders were passed by the second respondent requiring the petitioner to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 1.32 Crores as entertainment duty in respect of the event which was held in the year 2011 failing whic....