Water sports – Entertainment Duty – validity of proviso to Section 3(1) & (5A) of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923, as inserted by Amendment Act of 1998, upheld.
On 27.3.2000, the respondent no.1 granted lease of 500 sq.mts land at Chopwatty, Mumbai to MTDC for water sports.
On 29.3.2001, MTDC granted license to the petitioners for a period of ten years to develop, manage and operate water sports on monthly licence fees and other conditions.
The petitioners started the water sports. However, in 2001, inspection was done. On 26.3.2002 the petitioners wrote the letter that entertainment duty was not leviable on water sports.
On 27.2.2022, demand notice for entertainment duty of Rs.8,53,943/-. This was confirmed in appeal. However, in revision the contention of the petitioners for exemption for a period of 3 years under Section 3(5A) and remission for 2 years thereafter.
After three years, the entertainment duty was deposited.
The petitioners have challenged the order in revision and also for refund.
HELD that reliance on the legislative debate to show that duty on water sports was not intended the petitioners is of no use since the provisions of the Act are very clear. The cannot claim negative equality with the operators at the Gateway of India on the ground that such operators are not levied entertainment duty. The principle of unjust enrichment cannot be claimed on the ground that the petitioners had not collected duty from their customers but deposited the duty with the Government. The petitioners have to show that the State has illegally and without authority of law has levied and appropriated duty.
Judgment dated 4.12.2023 in W.P.No.2158 of 2005 of Drishti Adventures Sports Pvt Ltd and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
