The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to take a time-bound decision on a representation filed by Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited seeking extension of its tax incentive period under the State’s Tourism Policy.

The Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe disposed of the plea with directions to the concerned ministries to consider and decide the company’s representation dated January 11, 2024, preferably within two months. 

The bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and kept all contentions open.

The petitioner/assessee, Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited, formerly known as Adlabs Entertainment Limited, operates the theme park “Imagicaa” and the water park “Aquamagica” at Khalapur, Khopoli in Raigad district. The projects were granted “Mega Project” status under Maharashtra’s Tourism Policy 2006.

Under Entitlement Certificate (EC-1) dated June 15, 2013, the company was granted Entertainment Tax (ET) exemption worth ₹724.39 crore for 10 years for its theme park. Subsequently, under Entitlement Certificate (EC-2) dated May 25, 2015, it was granted ET exemption worth ₹101.06 crore for 10 years for its water park. The total incentive entitlement amounted to approximately ₹825 crore.

The company contended that the ET exemption for the theme park expired on June 14, 2025, while the exemption for the water park is set to expire on May 31, 2027. It sought extension of the entitlement period to enable recovery of its investment, particularly in light of changes brought about by the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.

With the implementation of GST on July 1, 2017, Entertainment Tax was subsumed. The company argued that this transition created uncertainty regarding the balance quantum of exemption available under the earlier regime. The tax rate effectively moved from 15% under ET to 18% under GST, and subsequently the State provided for refund of the State GST (SGST) component based on recommendations of a High-Level Committee.

In earlier litigation (Writ Petition No. 3027 of 2018), the High Court had directed constitution of a High-Level Committee, which recommended that the State refund SGST paid by the company in terms of the entitlement certificates. The State accepted the recommendation through a Government Resolution dated March 4, 2020, providing for SGST refunds.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the parks remained shut for a prolonged period due to nationwide lockdowns. In October 2023, the State extended the incentive period from March 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022, effectively granting a two-year extension owing to the pandemic. However, the issue of reduced effective benefits due to the lower SGST rate of 9% as compared to the earlier 15% ET rate remained unresolved.

Abhishek Rastogi, the counsel for the company, confined submissions to seeking extension of the entitlement period under the original certificates. The petitioner argued that the reduced tax structure and pandemic-related disruptions prevented full realization of the sanctioned ₹825 crore incentives within the stipulated period.

The company’s comprehensive representation dated January 11, 2024, also raised issues such as extension of the incentive period for eligible tourism units; SGST refund on a gross basis in line with industrial policies; refund of a portion of CGST corresponding to the State’s share of devolution; industrial electricity tariff benefits for tourism projects; and interest on delayed SGST refunds.

The department submitted before the court that the government would consider the request and decide whether the petitioner is entitled to extension of incentives.

The Bench observed that the matter involved a policy decision requiring inter-departmental consultation, particularly between the Department of Tourism and Cultural Affairs and the Finance Ministry. It noted that collaboration among concerned ministries would be necessary to arrive at an appropriate decision.

The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation dated January 11, 2024, expeditiously and preferably within two months. The petitioner is granted an opportunity of hearing before a decision is taken. The petitioner may submit additional documents in support of its case.

Case Details

Case Title: Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited Versus Union of India & Ors. 

Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 1571 OF 2025

Date: 12/02/2026

Counsel For  Petitioner: Abhishek Rastogi a/w Pooja Rastogi, Meenal Songire, Aarya More

Counsel For Respondent: Ram Ochani 

Read More: No GST on University Affiliation Fees: Rajasthan HC