The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra government’s amendment to the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act (MED Act) that brings “convenience fees” for online ticket bookings within the ambit of entertainment duty.
The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain, dismissed two writ petitions — one filed by the FICCI-Multiplex Association of India and the other by Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (operator of BookMyShow). The petitions had challenged the seventh proviso to Section 2(b) of the MED Act, inserted via the Maharashtra Act No. XLII of 2014, which allows the state to levy entertainment duty on any convenience or internet handling fee exceeding Rs. 10 per ticket.
The 2014 amendment was introduced after the state observed that service providers and multiplex operators were charging “exorbitant” amounts as online booking fees, leading to “undue financial exploitation” of consumers. The proviso permits up to ₹10 per ticket (or any amount notified by the government) as exempt from duty, but mandates that any excess be treated as part of the “payment for admission” — thus attracting entertainment duty.
Petitioners argued that convenience fees are for a separate service — the facility to book tickets remotely — and not for admission to entertainment. The levy falls outside Entry 62 of List II (State List) of the Constitution and is instead a matter of service tax under the Union List. The amendment was a colourable exercise of legislative power, seeking to tax an activity (online booking) unrelated to the core definition of entertainment.
The state contended that under pith and substance, convenience fees are “connected with entertainment” and form part of the cost of enjoying it. Entry 62, List II clearly empowers the State to tax all components of admission to entertainment. The MED Act already has sufficient machinery provisions to assess and collect such duty.
The bench found that the link between online booking charges and entertainment is direct, as these fees are intrinsically tied to the purchase of admission. The Rs. 10 exemption limit is a reasonable classification, intended to curb excessive charges while allowing nominal recovery for online booking facilities. The State’s legislative competence under Entry 62 extends to modifying the measure of tax and including such charges in the taxable base.
On the challenge by Big Tree Entertainment, the Court noted that no demand notice had been issued against the company, and any liability would depend on contractual arrangements with theatre owners — a matter unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226 without complete factual disclosure.
Case Details
Case Title: FICCI-Multiplex Association of India Versus State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Writ Petition No.1813 Of 2016
Date: 6 August 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Naresh Thacker
Counsel For Respondent: Milind More
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.
