Latest news with #JitendraJain
India Today
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- India Today
Court upholds Maharashtra order to charge entertainment duty on convenience fees
The Bombay High Court on Thursday upheld the Maharashtra government's decision to charge entertainment duty on convenience fees collected during online movie ticket bookings. The ruling came on Thursday, after the court dismissed two petitions filed by the FICCI-Multiplex Association of India and online ticketing platform BookMyShow.A bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain said the convenience fee charged for booking tickets online was directly linked to access to entertainment. "The online ticket booking charges are directly connected with buying a ticket for entertainment without which a person cannot enter the theatre," the court noted, adding that the distinction between services inside and outside the entertainment area was "superfluous".advertisementThe case revolved around a 2014 amendment to the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act (MED Act), which allows the state to levy entertainment duty on convenience fees exceeding Rs 10 per ticket. The petitioners argued that this fee was for a separate service—online booking—on which service tax was already being paid under the Central Finance Act. They claimed the state had no authority to tax it, as it was unrelated to the actual screening of movies. Senior advocate Naresh Thacker, representing the Multiplex Association, said there was "no direct nexus" between the fee and entry to entertainment, calling the levy unconstitutional and outside the state's powers under the Constitution. He argued that selling tickets online was a different business activity from showing films in in its separate petition, said it was "merely a service provider" and not the entertainment organiser. It called the move a "colourable exercise of power," claiming the real aim was consumer protection rather than Maharashtra government, represented by Additional Government Pleader Milind More, defended the amendment. He said the convenience fee formed part of the overall cost of watching a movie and therefore could be taxed. The 2014 change to the law, he added, was aimed at preventing excessive booking court agreed with the state's view, stating that the power to impose entertainment tax lies with the state legislature. It rejected the argument that the fee was unrelated to entertainment, saying the service was inseparable from the process of gaining entry to a just last month, the same bench had struck down two earlier state government orders from 2013 and 2014 that had completely barred cinema owners from charging convenience fees on online ticket Thursday's ruling, while cinema owners and ticketing platforms can charge such fees, any amount above Rs 10 per ticket will attract entertainment duty.- Ends
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
HC upholds tax on online ticket booking fee
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday upheld the Maharashtra government's right to levy entertainment tax on convenience fees charged during online ticket bookings, whether or not the platform is owned by multiplexes. 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.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Bombay high court upholds entertainment duty on online ticket booking convenience fees
Mumbai: In a boost to the state, Bombay High Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity and reasonableness of a 2014 amendment to the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act. This amendment empowered a levy of entertainment duty on convenience fees exceeding Rs 10 by online ticketing platforms and movie theatres for virtual booking. HC dismissed two petitions filed around a decade ago challenging the state's move. An interim stay on the levy, though, will continue for another four weeks, HC said, to enable an appeal. The HC division bench of Justices M S Sonak and Jitendra Jain held the argument that the state lacks the power to levy entertainment duty on the activity of providing convenience through online ticket booking is based on the incorrect assumption that online ticket booking constitutes a separate business activity. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Under the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty (MED) Act, duty is levied on admission to the entertainment venue—a cinema, theatre, matches, amusement parks, among others—and for calculating the duty, one of the measures of tax to be included is the amount charged as convenience fees. After a detailed analysis of the law, Justice Jain, authoring the judgment, said the "petitioners are not justified in claiming that the activity of online ticket booking is a separate activity intended to be taxed under'' a list covered by the Centre. HC said if the individual purchases a ticket online, the charges paid as "convenience fees" would be regarded as a condition for attending the entertainment, and thus, these would fall within the scope of the measure of tax. One petition was filed by FICCI-Multiplex Association of India, based in Delhi, and its Pune-based secretary D D Chaphalkar, and the other by Big Tree Entertainment and its director Rajesh Balpande in Mumbai to challenge the validity of the state's move to levy and collect entertainment duty on convenience fees for the provision of online ticket booking. The state issued the GR on Dec 29, 2014. By the amendment, it inserted a provision to the MED Act to exclude taxing of convenience fees up to Rs 10 either by multiplex owners or online, provided data is submitted before the seventh day of every succeeding month; but any amount of Rs 10 or more will be considered as admission fee and suitably taxed. The state said the use of modern technology enabled and led to high demand for online booking for various entertainment, with service providers charging an "exorbitant amount per ticket as internet handling fee or convenience charge for online ticket booking service, which resulted in undue financial exploitation of persons admitted to such entertainments.'' The entertainment duty levy proposed in 2014 was to "curb this exploitation,'' the state submitted. The multiplex owners questioned the state's legislative competence to impose such a levy on the service fee. They said the state wrongly transgressed to invoke the Centre's power. The activity of rendering a service is taxed by the Centre, while the entertainment activity is taxed by the State on the basis of admission cost. HC also noted that the MED Act provides that entry is not permitted without a valid ticket, and thus petitioners cannot argue that only the amount paid for the ticket should be considered the payment for admission, which is the basis for the duty payable. 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 s ilver prices in your area.
Time of India
11-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Bombay high court directs Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation to reconstruct heritage limestone finial at Petit Institute
1 2 Mumbai: The Bombay high court directed the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) to reconstruct a heritage limestone finial feature of the iconic JN Petit Institute, which fell during the construction of Metro Line III in 2017. A division bench of Justices M S Sonak and Jitendra Jain, in its July 10 judgment, said, "Whilst the march of development and infrastructural projects cannot be halted in a city like Mumbai, such a march cannot be permitted to run roughshod over the concerns of preserving and maintaining heritage buildings for posterity." The high court clarified that its prima facie observations are not intended to prejudice either the trust or the state and MMRCL, and kept all contentions open on either side. The high court was disposing of a petition filed in 2018 by D V M Patel and Homa Petit, trustees of the JN Petit Institute, a Grade II-A heritage structure located at DN Road in Fort. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Construction of the underground metro line was completed in 2023, said the high court. It said the petitioners retain the liberty to initiate legal proceedings in case any damage arises when the metro becomes operational. The high court said that regarding the fallen finial it had "no serious doubts about the connection to MMRCL's Metro Line III project works". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Gentle Japanese hair growth method for men and women's scalp Hair's Rich Learn More Undo The judgment noted that records showed it "collapsed on 25 Aug 2017, when the petitioners were constantly complaining about the vibrations and the failure to monitor them". The trust filed a petition in 2017, and following a stay of work by the high court on Sept 15, 2017, in front of the institute, the court appointed an expert committee which recommended precautionary measures. Only then did the HC, on 29 November 2017, vacate the restraint and allow MMRCL to resume work. The HC on Thursday noted that "fortunately, the MMRCL, without prejudice to its rights and contentions and without accepting any liability, has now agreed to reconstruct the limestone finial …". The high court termed as "too speculative" the petitioning trustees' concern "at this stage" over damage likely to be caused once the underground metro becomes operative and said the averments of MMRCL in its affidavit address some of the trust's concerns. The high court observed that MMRCL's statements suggest that the alignment of the metro tunnel is not directly under the Petit building. "The tracks run approximately four to five metres away horizontally and around 25 metres below ground level," the high court said in its judgment, recording MMRCL's claims that noise levels are within legal norms and even the maximum recorded vibration value of 55 VdB at surface ground level is lower than the permitted limit of 72 VdB. "At this point, it is not for us to either accept or reject the above statements," the high court said. The high court directed MMRCL "to reconstruct/restore/replicate the limestone finial previously forming a part of the building at its own costs" subject to various conditions including full cooperation of the trust. The trust must obtain all prior requisite permissions from authorities, said the high court, for the restoration work. The court said work must finish within eight months of the last permission once received. The trust operates the JN Petit Reading Room and Library since 1856. The plea concerned JN Petit Institute, along with an arcade constructed on the land in Fort, south Mumbai, a neo-gothic revival style building dating back to 1898. It houses a lakh books and was renovated in 2014-15 and was conferred the UNESCO Award of Distinction for Cultural Heritage Conservation. The building features various ornamental, decorative, and distinctive elements, including a circular staircase tower, bouquets, finials, and tower turrets that shape its silhouette. The building's foundation is "only around three metres deep", the trustees said.
Indian Express
11-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
Bombay HC sets aside Maha Govt's decision to prohibit levying of convenience fees on online movie tickets
The Bombay High Court Thursday quashed and set aside the Maharashtra Government's decision that prohibited cinema theatre owners, exhibitors, and agents from charging additional amounts from viewers as service charges or convenience fees on movie tickets booked through online platforms. The high court said the decisions of the Revenue Department were violative of the fundamental right of carrying out business, and that the authorities did not have the power to issue the same under the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty (MED) Act. On July 9, 2014, the HC had stayed the operation and implementation of portions of the impugned government orders (GOs), which continued from time to time, keeping the decision in abeyance for over a decade. A division bench of Justices Mahesh S Sonak and Jitendra Jain on July 10 passed a judgement on pleas by PVR Limited, FICCI-Multiplex Association of India, and Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited, which operates the online ticketing platform, BookMyShow, that challenged portions of two GOs of 2013 and 2014. Through a GO in April 2013, the Maharashtra Government had prohibited operators, owners, and agents from levying any additional service charge on viewers. The March 2014 GO provided that theatre conductors across the state should set up their own service or machinery for online ticket sales and no additional service charges should be recovered from viewers for the same. Advocate Naresh Thacker, for PVR and FICCI-Multiplex Association, argued that convenience fees charged for online booking platforms were a separate component agreed between private parties, and it was not under the purview of the MED Act. BookMyShow, through advocate Rohan Rajadhyaksha, argued that service providers such as IRCTC, MakeMyTrip, etc, who also charge additional service charges, are not subject to any restrictions; therefore, the GOs were discriminatory. He also argued that the platforms were not covered by GOs as they were not agents of cinema hall exhibitors or owners. 'We are of the view that the impugned GO transgressed the fundamental rights under Article (19)(1)(g) granted to the petitioners by prohibiting theatre owners and others from collecting the convenience fees from their customers,' the HC observed. The court added that without any statutory regulation to oversee the petitioner's right to conduct business, 'the imposition of such a restraint would infringe the legitimate rights of theatre owners,' therefore, the impugned prohibition was contrary to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 'If business owners are not permitted to determine the various facets of their business (in accordance with law), economic activity would come to a grinding halt. The choice of whether to book the ticket online or purchase it at the theatre is left to the customers,' the bench said 'Suppose the customer feels it is convenient to book the tickets online by not going to the theatre and paying the convenience fees. In that case, the Respondents (authorities) cannot restrain the Petitioners from collecting the convenience fees since, for providing this facility of online booking, the theatre Owners/Petitioners have to invest in the technology,' the bench also noted. The Bombay High Court also clarified that it had not gone into the issue of whether an entertainment duty is liable to be paid on such convenience fees.
