M/S. JASWANT TALKIES vs. COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, BHILWARA

C.A. No.-005161-005161 - 2007Supreme Court12 November 2007Bench: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT D.K. JAIN6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The appellant, M/s Jaswant Talkies, an exhibitor of cinematograph films, was inspected on February 3, 1996. At that time, 878 viewers were found watching a movie without tickets. The daily collection register was not properly maintained. A show cause notice was issued under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Act, 1957, alleging offenses under Sections 6(1) and 6(2). The appellant contended that school girl students were watching the movie and that a penalty of Rs. 500/- per viewer was unconscionable. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- per viewer and an additional Rs. 500/- under Section 10(3)(b). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty under Section 10(3)(a) but set aside the penalty under Section 10(3)(b)(iii). The Rajasthan Taxation Board held that the maximum penalty imposable was Rs. 500/-. The Revenue filed a revision petition, and the High Court restored the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the amendment to Section 10 of the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Act, 1957, effective from July 31, 1998, which specifically provided for the imposition of penalty per person in cases covered by Section 10(3)(a), was not retrospective and was not merely clarificatory. The Court noted that if the penalty per person was already permissible, there would have been no need for such an amendment. The Court found the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 4,39,000/- against a tax liability of Rs. 3006/- to be irrational. The reasoning was that the original provision (pre-1998 amendment) did not contemplate a penalty per person, and the maximum penalty imposable was Rs. 500/-. Therefore, the conclusion of the Rajasthan Taxation Board was deemed correct, and the High Court's view was considered incorrect. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court was set aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty under Section 10(3)(a) of the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Act, 1957, prior to its amendment in 1998, could be imposed at the rate of Rs. 500/- per viewer, or if the maximum penalty was Rs. 500/- in total. Assessee's contention: The appellant argued that the High Court erred by relying on Maharana Talkies v. State of Rajasthan, which was contrary to the High Court's own earlier decision in State of Rajasthan v. RTT, holding that no penalty could be levied per person. The appellant also contended that the amendment to Section 10 was not clarificatory and that the penalty of Rs. 4,39,000/- against a tax liability of Rs. 3006/- was irrational. Revenue's contention: The Revenue supported the High Court's order, implying that the penalty per viewer was permissible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10,Section 6(1),Section 6(2),Section 10(3)(b),Section 10(3)(a),Section 10(3)(b)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5161 of 2007 PETITIONER: M/s Jaswant Talkies RESPONDENT: Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhilwara DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/11/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5161 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7053 of 2006) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, allowing the revision filed by the respondent. The said revision petition was filed under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (in short the ’Act’).

3.

Factual position which is almost undisputed is as follows: The appellant is an exhibitor of cinematograph films. On 3.2.1996 cinema hall of the appellant was inspected by the Commercial Tax Inspectors. At that time a movie "Alladdin" was being shown in the morning show. At the time of inspection, 878 viewers were found watching the movie without tickets. It was found that the daily collection register maintained by the appellant was not properly maintained. The inspectors put their sig

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10

All 582 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →