Case: State Of Maharashtra  Vs. Swanstone Multiplex Cinema(P) Ltd

3. Respondent is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act. It inter alia is engaged in the business of operating a multiplex theatre, commonly known as Fame Adlabs in the town of Mumbai for screening of films in the said theatre. Indisputably, the provisions of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 (for short "the Act") are applicable to the said multiplex theatre. The State of Maharashtra, however, adopted a policy decision to provide certain exemptions in the matter of payment of entertainment duties. Entertainment duty is payable at the rate of 45% on payment for admission by the proprietors so far as the multiplex theatres constituted within the limits of the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation are concerned.4. Respondent availed the said exemption. It, however, even during the period for which it was not liable to pay any duty or duty at the rate of 25% only realized the entire duty. Appellants issued a notice dated 5.12.2005 demanding 75% of the entertainment tax reflected by the respondent on its tickets for the period between 24.06.2005 and 22.09.2005, i.e., Rs.1,16,95,846/-. On or about 30.12.2005, the appellant issued another notice demanding Rs. 1,16,95,846/- within 48 hours. Further on 21.01.2006 issued a further demand notice to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 70,39,529/- for the period between 23.09.2005 and 5.01.2006.5. The writ petition having been filed questioning the legality and/ or validity of the said notices of demand, the High Court by reason of the impugned judgmentconclude, it cannot be said that merely because the proprietors printed full entertainment tax duty on the admission ticket though they were only liable to pay 25% of the entertainment tax duty for a period of 2 years for which they were eligible for 75% exemption of the entertainment tax, they are liable to pay 100% entertainment tax without there being any express authority of law created by the Statute. On the other hand, it would deprive them of the incentive which has been specifically offered under the scheme for which the Act came to be amended and would be in total conflict with the object and reasons with which the Government sought amendment of the Act nor this can be considered as a case of unjust enrichment as even, otherwise, the gross admission fee which the patron is supposed to pay minus the entertainment tax and other taxes (direct or indirect) would ultimately go in the pocket of the proprietors of the multiplex theaters.63. Therefore, we find that the State was not entitled to claim more than what could be levied as entertainment duty during the two years period irrespective of the fact that the Exhibitors have shown on admission tickets issued to patrons 45% of the duty though they were liable to pay only 25% of 45% during the incentive period which was of 2 years. The impugned notices and order Exh A-1 and A-2 and H are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute with no order as to

Court's reasoning:
24. In absence of any express statutory provision, allowing the proprietors of the multiplex theatre to retain the benefit, it is difficult for us to arrive at such an inference. The State has power to impose tax. The State has a power to grant exemption or concession in respect of payment of tax. It has no power in terms of the provisions of the Constitution or otherwise to allow an assessee to collect the tax and retain the same. We will assume that to that effect the provisions are not very clear but the superior courts will not interpret the statute in such a way which will confer an unjust benefit to any of the parties, i.e., either the taxpayer or tax collector or the State. The statute must be interpreted reasonably. It must be so interpreted so that it becomes workable. Interpretation of a statute must subserve a constitutional goal.25. A statue of this nature, in our considered opinion, cannot be interpreted in such a manner so as to enable an entrepreneur to get undue advantage to the effect that he would collect tax from theand appropriate the same. When a person collects tax illegally, he has to refund it to the taxpayers. If the taxpayers cannot be found, the court would either direct the same to be paid and/ or appropriated by the State. In a given case, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India may also issue other directions, as has been done in Indian Banks Association, Bombay and Others v. Devkala Consultancy Service and Others [(2004) 11 SCC 1] in a similar situation where it was difficult for the court to direct refund of a huge amount to a large number of depositors from whom the bank had illegally collected, this Court directed that the amount be spent for the benefit of the disabled in terms of the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.This Court may take recourse to such a procedure as the State also having granted exemption was not entitled to collect the duty. In other words, it having granted an exemption, was not legally entitled thereto.26. We think that it would be better course, as strict sensu, Article 296 of the Constitution is not applicable.We are passing this order keeping in view the peculiar situation as in either event it waswho had lost a huge amount. It would be travesty of justice if the owners of the cinema theatre become eligible to appropriate such a huge amount for its own benefit. To the aforementioned extent, doctrine of unjust enrichment may be held to be applicable. A person who unjustly enriches himself cannot be permitted to retain the same for its benefit except enrichment. Where it becomes entitled thereto the doctrine of unjust enrichment can be invoked irrespective of any statutory provisions.It may be true that here at we are not concerned with refund of tax but then for enforcement of legal principles, this court may direct a party to divest itself of the money or benefits, which in justice, equity and good conscience belongs to someone else. It must be directed to restitute that part of the benefit to which it was not entitled to.29. We, therefore, direct that the State shall realize the amount to the extent the respondent had unjustly enriched itself and pay the same to a voluntary or a charitable organization, which according to it is a reputed civil society organization and had been rendering good services to any section of the disadvantaged people and in particular women andwould request Honble the Chief Minister of the State to take up the responsibility in this behalf so that full, proper and effective utilization of the amount in question is ensured.