TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court found that the appellants were guilty of the offences with which they were charged, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal and imposed a fine of ₹ 40/- each on the five partners of the Lido Restaurant and directed that the fines be paid in addition to the tax leviable under Section 3 of the Act. 3. P.W. 3, Bodh Raj, was the entertainment tax inspector at the material time. On 15th November 1968, under the instruction of his superior officer, he went along with Bajaj, P.W. 5, inspector, and visited Lido Restaurant, Connaught Circus, at 10 P.M. and remained in the Restaurant till 11.15 P.M. Cabaret programme was given in the restaurant and a band was in attendance. P.W. 3 contacted the manager and recorded a statement which is Ex. B. 1, in which the manager, V.N. Sood, stated that they were holding cabaret programme from 5th November 1968 daily and that the service is effected on an a la carte basis. The minimum charges for eatables at the time of cabaret are ₹ 5/- at evening tea, and ₹ 10/- at dinner time from 10 P.M. onwards. According to his statement, there was no admission charge or fee of any kind. P.W. 3 also examined cash memos an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainment and other amusements and on certain forms of betting. Section 3(1) provides that there shall be levied and paid to the Central Government on all payments for admission to any entertainment, a tax at the rate specified in the section. Section 3(3) provides for amounts payable on lump subscription or contribution or on season ticket and other matters which would be referred to a little later. 6. Section 4(1) runs as follows :- 4.(1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, no person, other than a person who has some duty to perform in connection with the entertainment or a duty imposed upon him by law, shall be admitted to any entertainment, except with a ticket stamped with an impressed embossed, engraved or adhesive stamp (not before used) issued by the Central Government for the purposes of revenue and denoting that the proper entertainments tax payable under Section 3 has been paid. The words payment for admission in Section 3(1) is defined under Section 2(6) as follows :- Payment for admission includes :- (i) any payment made by a person who, having been admitted to one part of a place of entertainment is subsequently admitted to another part thereof, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show is put up, it cannot be said that any payment is made for admission for the entertainment but requiring a minimum of ₹ 5/- and ₹ 10/- whether the customer consumed any eatable or not would lead to an irresistible conclusion that a payment of fee for admission to the entertainment is also included. 7. On the facts of the case it would be an admission to an entertainment. Though it may be for taking tea or dinner for a minimum charge,. as the admission is to a place where the entertainment is held, it would come within the definition under Section 2(1). Further, the payment of ₹ 5/- or ₹ 10/- though it is stated to be for the dinner, as it is connected with an entertainment and as the person is making the payment as a condition for attending or continuing to attend the entertainment, it would attract the definition of payment for admission under Section 2(6)(iv) of the Act. On the facts therefore we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and confirm the convictions passed on the appellants and reject the appeal. The High Court, in disposing of the appeal by the Government, though the Government was not present, dealt with the law elabo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o money is paid for admission and would be liable for tax. A decision which was debated at length at the bar is that of a Court of Appeal in J. Lyons Co. Ltd. v. Fox [1919] 1 K.B. 11. In that case, the concerts of music were given during and after the service of tea and dinner. The dinner was permitted to stay for one hour after the service of dinner had ceased. No charge was made in any form, except for the meals which were served both at a fixed price and a-la-carte, and for which a bill was rendered to the customer before he left the restaurant. By a majority it was held that payments made by the customers to the restaurant were not payment for admission to entertainment within the meaning of Section 1(1) of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, and that the entertainment duty was therefore not chargeable in respect thereof. A minority judgment took the view that the tea or dinner was purely incidental to the concert, especially in view of the finding of the Magistrate that the persons were paying not merely for the dinner but also for the entertainment which followed the dinner. Reference was made to Attorney General v. London Casino Ltd., [1937] 3 All 858 under the Finance (Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
