9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is deemed to have received the amount mentioned for admission to the entertainment according to the class of seat or accommodation which the holder of such ticket is entitled to occupy or use. - if the assessee arranges his affairs in such a manner so as to attract no tax, no fault would be found with the assessee. In fact, after this order, it is submitted that in order to avoid such consequences in future, the assessee has given up giving complimentary tickets to the members and VVIPs printing at the rate of ₹ 25/- and ₹ 49/- and they are printed at actual prices and paying taxes for the subsequent years. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any intention much less the malafide intention for avoiding payment of tax. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siting the requisite security amount. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement)-I, Bangalore inspected the office premises of the assessee on 30-04-2010. According to him, in order to avoid/evade payment of tax, the value of the tickets were printed as ₹ 25/- and ₹ 49/- with facilities and seats were provided on par with the persons who had purchased the tickets having face value of ₹ 1,650/-. The assessment was concluded levying tax on tickets for ₹ 25/- and ₹ 49/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-1, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Authority' for short) who dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting levy of tax on the tickets of ₹ 25/- and ₹ 49/-, where the facilities of ₹ 1650/- tickets were provided ? (b) In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal is right in giving a finding that ticket holders of ₹ 25/49 were admitted only to the stands that were meant for ₹ 25/49 and re-fixing the value of the said tickets, is not justifiable ? (c) In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether tax is attracted on the tickets of ₹ 25/49 printed on the face value in order to just avoid payment of tax and are treated on par with ₹ 1650/- tickets ? 7. Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act) on every complimentary ticket issued by the proprietor of an entertainment, the entertainments tax at the appropriate rate specified in sub-section (1) [and sub-section (1-A)] in respect of such entertainment, as if full payment had been made for admission to the entertainment according to the class of seat or accommodation which the holder of such ticket is entitled to occupy or use; and for the purposes of this Act, the holder of such ticket shall be deemed to have been admitted on payment: [Provided that where the seat or accommodation which the holder of such a ticket is entitled to occupy or use is different from the classes of seat or accommodation inside the auditorium or place of entertainment and for admission to the said s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 50/-, no tax is leviable under Section 3. However, sub-Section (2) of Section 3 makes it clear that every complimentary ticket issued by the Proprietor of an entertainment, even if no amount is received by the holder of such ticket, the Proprietor of an entertainment is deemed to have received the amount mentioned for admission to the entertainment according to the class of seat or accommodation which the holder of such ticket is entitled to occupy or use. Proviso to the said provision makes it clear that, if for admission to the said seat or accommodation no payment is fixed, the holder of such ticket shall be deemed to be entitled to occupy or use higher class of seat or accommodation and for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VVIPs printing at the rate of ₹ 25/- and ₹ 49/- and they are printed at actual prices and paying taxes for the subsequent years. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any intention much less the malafide intention for avoiding payment of tax. The assessee would be entitled to this benefit only for the period 2010. That is precisely what the Tribunal has held. Hence, for the assessment year 2010, we do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the revision petitions. Accordingly they are dismissed. However, it is made cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
