TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing payment of entertainment tax. It is difficult to believe that the fashion show was held with the object of educating prospective students who would be interested in joining the Institute of Art, Fashion Designing and Modelling and was, therefore, exempt under section 11(3) of the 1979 Act, as the advertisement referred to above indicates the object of the show was to invite people to come and watch the new world of glamour and modelling and to see the world of exotic fashion in Gorakhpur itself. - Civil Appeal No. 5455 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2007 - THAKKER C.K. AND ALTAMAS KABIR JJ. Pramod Kumar Yadav, Viresh Kumar Yadav and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates, for the appellant. S.K. Dwivedi, Vinha Dwivedi, G.V. Rao, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t contended that he was only a choreographer of Cambridge Intertia Group which arranged the programme. The appellant contended that the programme, as arranged, did not attract the provisions of the aforesaid Act and that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction. A specific stand was also taken that section 5 of the 1979 Act provided that any programme relating to entertainment could not be held without prior permission but that since the programme was not entertainment within the meaning of the Act, the same had been held by the Institution with prior intimation to the office of the District Magistrate. It was reiterated that the programme was of a competitive nature and there was no element of entertainment involved. Furthermor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact, the Director of the programme with Smt. S. Mishra as the convener. The District Magistrate chose to rely on the report submitted by his department as to the collection of entry fee from the spectators and funds from the organisers. Reference was also made to other shows of similar nature held in Gorakhpur where fashion shows had been held after depositing the entertainment tax payable in respect thereof and after obtaining the permission of the District Magistrate. Rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant, the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the appellant had collected a total sum of ₹ 1,62,500 from the spectators and a further sum of ₹ 25,000 from the five organisers at the rate of ₹ 5,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and Modelling by the Cambridge Intertia Group, the provisions of the 1979 Act were not at all attracted and the show cause notice which had been issued by the District Magistrate was without jurisdiction or in excess of the jurisdiction vested in him under the Act. Mr. Goyal urged that both the District Magistrate as also the High Court had wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was responsible for organising and holding the fashion show. He reiterated the submission made earlier before the other authorities that it was respondent Nos. 7 and 8 who were the real organisers and convener of the fashion show and the liability of entertainment tax, if any, had been wrongly foisted upon him. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely a charity show was not tenable and it had been rightly held that the same was for the purpose of entertainment and that large sums of money had been collected from the spectators on the occasion. Mr. Dwivedi also submitted that despite the efforts of the appellant to shift the liability of payment of the entertainment tax demanded by respondent Nos. 7 and 8, it had been established that it was the appellant who had master-minded the show with the full knowledge that the same was being held for the purpose of entertainment and that entertainment tax was payable in respect thereof under the 1979 Act. Mr. Dwivedi submitted that no case had been made out on the appellant's behalf for interference with the orders passed by the Distri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
