Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (9) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n and entertainment and even of a pageant. In a cumulative effect of the activities of the event in question, we are in no doubt that they were of such exhibitions and performances, which indeed provide amusement and entertainment - The event organised by the appellant, therefore, clearly answers to the wide definition of 'entertainment' per sub-clause (iii) of clause (e) of Section of 2 of the Act of 1958. Element of 'payment for admission' - Held that:- The receipts of the appellant directly answer to the description of 'payment for admission' under the Act of 1958; and when such payment for admission was received by the appellant for the event in question, which had been an 'entertainment' for the purpose of the Act of 1958, there is no escape for the appellant from the liability thereunder. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - WRIT APPEAL No. 843 OF 2018 (T-ET) - - - Dated:- 3-9-2018 - MR. DINESH MAHESHWARI, AND MR. KRISHNA S. DIXIT JJ. Appellant (By Sri Shivaraj N. Arali, Advocate) Respondents (By Sri Vikram Huigol, HCGP) JUDGMENT Preliminary 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 30.01.2018 in W.P.No .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r any purpose whatsoever connected with an entertainment including sponsorship fee and advertisement charges, which is paid to the proprietor or any person connected with conducting or organizing such entertainment, with a view to promote goodwill, brand name or any business interest directly or indirectly which enables entry of any person into the entertainment; .... .... .... .... (k) Proprietor in relation to any entertainment other than an entertainment referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (e) includes any person responsible for the management thereof and in relation to any entertainment referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (e) includes any person conducting organising, sponsoring or patronising any such entertainment. The facts and background 5. Put in brief, the relevant facts and the background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner/appellant, said to be engaged in the business of event management, organised the four-day event in question, titled Bangalore Fashion Week , from 02.02.2012 to 05.02.2012 comprising lifestyle parties, after-hour parties, press conferences, fashion shows, and exhibition of designer products/apparels by li .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... udge on behalf of the petitioner/appellant that the event in question neither fell within the definition of entertainment per Section 2(e)(iii) of the Act of 1958, nor the sponsorship fees or advertisement charges received by the petitioner-appellant fell within the definition of payment for admission per Section 2(i)(iv-a) of the Act of 1958. A Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Calico Mills Ltd. v. State Of M.P. and Others: AIR 1961 M.P. 257 , was also relied upon. It was further contended that the definition of 'entertainment' under the Act of 1958, inter alia, included a pageant, which connotes a procession of people, or a competition in which awards are given, but nothing of this sort was undertaken in the event in question. 10. The learned Single Judge held that the words employed in the definition of 'entertainment' were of wide import and were all pervasive, covering all kinds of amusement, exhibition, performance, pageant, game or sport, whether held indoor or outdoor; and collection of sponsorship fees and advertisement charges left nothing to doubt that receipts in the hands of the appellant would be liable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 12. The learned Single Judge, thus, rejected the contention of the petitioner and upheld the impugned order while observing as under: 13. This Court has no manner of doubt that the event organized by the petitioner clearly attracts the entertainment tax liability and there is no escape from the wide definition of Entertainment and charging provisions as contained in the Act itself. The overlapping of the words employed in the definition of Entertainment is intended to cover different kinds of Events and things of entertainment and they cannot be construed in separate and water tight compartments, as is sought to be argued by the petitioner in the present case. The submissions in appeal 13. Assailing the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the focal point that the incident liable to be taxed under the Act of 1958 should have an element of entertainment without which, the assessment is beyond the chargeable sections of the statute. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the relevant grounds urged on behalf of the appellant th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 39;, apart that it would also answer to the description of an amusement for recreation and entertainment and even of a pageant. 18. Though learned counsel for the appellant has strongly relied upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Calico Mills Ltd. (supra), but the said decision carries several fundamental distinguishing features. The petitioners therein, being engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of textiles, put up a canvas canopy for display and sale of their textile goods; the admission to the dome was unrestricted and free during morning hours and was restricted in the evening to the bona fide purchasers, who were required to obtain a token on payment of ₹ 2/- for admission to the dome. This amount was later on adjusted towards the price of the cloth purchased by the person visiting the dome. In the given set of facts, it was held that the said dome erected by the petitioners was not a place in which any entertainment within the meaning of the applicable statue was held. Holding that the natural import of the term 'entertainment' was gratification of some sort and it connotes something in the nature of an organised entertainment, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates