HC upholds tax on online ticket booking fee
The ruling was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice MS Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain, while hearing petitions filed by the FICCI-Multiplex Association of India and Big Tree Entertainment Pvt Ltd. The petitioners had challenged the state's authority to levy entertainment tax on convenience fees under the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty (Amendment) Act, 2014.
The petitioners had challenged the 2014 amendment, which enabled the state to impose a tax on convenience fees collected when tickets are booked online. They argued that entertainment tax should only apply to the base ticket price, and that convenience fees – being a separate charge – should not be added to the ticket value for the purpose of taxation. They also contended that such fees are already taxed under the Finance Act, 1994, a central law, and therefore fall outside the purview of the state's taxing authority.
'What is sought to be taxed is the form of entertainment and admission thereto, which features a movie/film, and there is no dispute that the members of the petitioner No 1 (Multiplex Association) are engaged in the business of featuring movies/films. This is the subject matter of the tax or duty,' the court observed in its ruling.
The bench further reasoned that access to a movie requires a ticket, and when such tickets are booked online, the associated convenience fees become a precondition to entry. 'A person cannot buy an online ticket without paying the convenience fees, and consequently, he would not be entitled to entertainment, nor would the theatre owner permit such an individual to enter,' the judges stated. Hence, they concluded that the payment of convenience fees is inherently linked to the right of entry into the entertainment venue.
The court also drew a distinction between the Finance Act, 1994, and the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act, 2014, noting that while the former imposes a service tax on activities, the latter levies duty on admission to entertainment. 'For calculating the duty, one of the measures of tax to be included is the amount charged as convenience fees,' the court said, thereby upholding the validity of the state legislation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
UT declares all PGI employment as essential
Chandigarh: UT chief secretary on Monday declared all employment at the PGI an "essential service," extending the Haryana Essential Services Act, 1974, to Chandigarh. The move prohibits any strikes by PGI staff. This is the first time the Act was invoked without an official strike notice from any union. The notification follows a 2024 public interest litigation (PIL) filed by PGI, which led to a Punjab and Haryana high court ruling on August 7 this year. The court noted that PGI services weren't previously declared essential under the East Punjab Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1947, yet it pre-emptively barred unions from future strikes or protests. The decision comes amidst an ongoing legal dispute with the PGI union president, Ashwani Munjal, who was banned from campus. The high court, while addressing Munjal's challenge, has permitted union activities only within their designated office space and explicitly forbidden any actions that would obstruct patient care or movement within the institute. According to Munjal, the recent court ruling and subsequent notification vindicate the union's decades-long position that ESMA was not previously applicable to PGI. However, he acknowledged the court's strict stance on protests, stating that any future demonstrations would be restricted to the institute's residential areas to prevent disruption of patient services. "The three decades old stand of union(s) that there is no notification imposing ESMA at PGI has been vindicated whereas PGI filed more than 6-8 CWP-PIL during 2018 to 2024 seeking orders to take action against leaders/staff under Section 6 & 7 ESMA, 1947/1968," said Munjal. He added, "The competent authority for PGI is the centre and not Chandigarh for invoking ESMA." Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
New Income-Tax Bill restores alternate minimum tax relief for LLPs
In a relief for non-corporate taxpayers, the government on Monday corrected an earlier drafting error, reinstating relief from the alternate minimum tax (AMT) for partnership firms and limited liability partnerships (LLPs) under the revised Income Tax (No. 2) Bill, 2025, presented in Parliament by Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. The revised Bill, which incorporates almost all of the recommendations of the Select Committee chaired by Baijayant Panda, was passed by the Lok Sabha through a voice vote, without discussion. The House also approved the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which grants tax relief under the new Unified Pension Scheme, extends benefits to Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, and clarifies block assessment rules following tax searches. Both Bills now move to the Rajya Sabha for consideration and will become law upon receiving Presidential assent. AMT, levied at 18.5 per cent plus cess and surcharge for non-corporate taxpayers, is intended to ensure high earners cannot fully offset their tax liabilities through exemptions. LLPs with only long-term capital gains (LTCG) income are otherwise taxed at 12.5 per cent. The earlier version of the Bill had omitted a critical reference to Chapter VI-A deductions in the AMT provisions for LLPs. This would have exposed LLPs — including those earning solely LTCG taxed at 12.5 per cent — to the higher AMT rate of 18.5 per cent plus cess and surcharge. The revised draft restores this reference in Clause 206, ensuring AMT applies only when total income is reduced by such deductions, consistent with the original intent. While the Select Committee made more than 285 recommendations, it did not propose altering the AMT framework for LLPs as contained in the first version of the Income Tax Bill, introduced in February. According to the Bill's statement of objects and reasons, alongside the committee's proposals, the government incorporated stakeholder suggestions to convey the proposed legal meaning more accurately, including 'corrections in the nature of drafting, alignment of phrases, consequential changes and cross-referencing'. One significant Select Committee recommendation, however, has been dropped. This would have broadened transfer pricing scrutiny by allowing a company to be treated as an 'associated enterprise' if it exercised 'substantial influence' over another, even without meeting current shareholding or board control thresholds. The provision would have brought a larger set of inter-corporate transactions under transfer pricing rules, which are designed to ensure related-party dealings reflect market value and prevent profit shifting. Dinesh Kanabar, chief executive officer of Dhruva Advisors, said the earlier draft risked introducing subjectivity. 'The earlier Bill proposed that two 'enterprises' would be regarded as associated if at any time during the year there was common management or control, irrespective of the Act's specific definitions. It is now provided that only in specified circumstances will management and control be deemed common, and the test applies as at the end of the year. This removes subjectivity and the litigation that goes with it,' he said. The latest version of the Income Tax Bill also restores key tax benefits for charitable and religious trusts. It reinstates a provision that allows such entities to reinvest capital gains in new capital assets to claim exemption, as well as the option to apply unspent income in the immediately succeeding year without losing tax benefits. A senior Central Board of Direct Taxes official said: 'If a charitable or religious trust sells a capital asset – such as land, buildings, shares -- and makes a capital gain, it can avoid paying tax on that gain if it reinvests the proceeds in another capital asset for its charitable purposes. This treatment already existed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the new Bill retains the same rule.'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
RS returns Manipur budget & GST bills
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel New Delhi: After adjournment during the first half of Monday, the Rajya Sabha took up the business amid protest by Opposition members. The House returned the Manipur Appropriation Bill , 2025, and The Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill to the Lok Sabha with a voice Manipur Appropriation Bill authorises payment and appropriation of certain sums out of the consolidated fund of the state of Manipur for services for 2025-26. The Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to implement the decisions approved by the GST Council , would replace the Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, the House resumed at 2 pm, leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge raised the issue of Opposition MPs being taken into custody by the Delhi Police while they were on their way to protest at the ECI office. The moment Kharge raised the point, Sasmit Patra who was in the chair, didn't allow him to speak further as his concerns were not about the bills taken up for discussion. The leader of the house JP Nadda strongly objected to the remarks made by Kharge and requested the chair to take it off the record. While the government initiated a discussion on Manipur bills, the Opposition walked out in finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman also criticised the Opposition for voting against the bills related to Manipur. The reference of Opposition members voting against the bill was made after a few Opposition MPs who were present in the House even after the boycott said "no" when the bill was members, however, maintained that they boycotted the House in protest.
