9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner/appellant liable to entertainment tax and penalty. 2. The questions for consideration in this appeal are in a narrow compass i.e., as to whether the event in question, a fashion show organised by the appellant, falls within the expression 'entertainment' and there had been 'payment for admission' so as to attract the relevant charging provisions of the Act, 1958. The relevant statutory provisions 3. Before adverting to the facts and the relevant background aspects, appropriate it would be to take note of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1958 which are of bearing and application to the present case. 4. In the scheme of the Act of 1958, entertainment tax is levied on certain payments for admission to entertainments of different nature as specified in Sections 3, 3A, 3C, 4, 4A, 4AA, 4B, 4C, 4E, 4F and 4G thereof. The basic question involved in the present case is as to whether the event in question, as organised by the petitioner, answers to the description of entertainment per sub-clause (iii) of clause (e) of Section 2 and whether the payments received by the petitioner had been payment for admission within the meaning of sub-clause (iv-a) of clause (i) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f sale of tickets and sponsorship fees etc. The appellant submitted its reply dated 24.10.2013 resisting the proposition of the respondents, but the respondent No. 2 proceeded to pass an order dated 29.10.2013 holding the appellant liable to the entertainment tax and penalty. A writ petition preferred by the appellant in challenge to the aforesaid order dated 29.10.2013 [W.P. No. 10119 of 2014] was dismissed by a learned Single Judge only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal; but in appeal [W.A. No. 780 of 2015], a Division Bench of this Court took the view that the matter called for interference because the objections of the appellant had not been considered by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed in the judgment and order dated 23.07.2015; the impugned order dated 29.10.2013 as passed by the respondent No. 2 was set aside; and the matter was remanded for consideration afresh. 7. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondent No. 2 took up the matter for consideration afresh; and after rejecting the objections, ultimately, assessed the liability of appellant for payment of entertainment tax amounting to Rs. 4,75 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem taxable under the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act, 1958. The person who collects payment for admission which by afore-quoted definition includes sponsorship fees and advertisement charges as well, which the petitioner collected in the present case also, leaves no manner of doubt that the receipts in the hands of the petitioner, the Event organizer, even though not being paid by the individuals entering in the said indoor place in the Hotel, would be liable to pay entertainment tax on such payment for admission charges including the sponsorship charges collected by it for the entertainment, amusement, etc. provided by it to the visitors." 11. The learned Single Judge also examined the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the aforesaid decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and observed that the definition of 'entertainment' (under the Act of 1958) was wider and was not restricted to the words like 'pageant.' The learned Single Judge also referred to the dictionary meaning of the expression 'pageant' and to the basic rules of interpretation as under: "12. The aforesaid definition actually commences with, "an entertainment consisting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, etc. were absent; and there were limited seating arrangements, only for designers, models, trade merchants and the like. According to the learned counsel, taking all these aspects into consideration, the event in question cannot be considered falling within the purview of 'entertainment' under the Act of 1958. No case for interference 15. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and having examined the matter in its totality with reference to the law applicable, we are clearly of the view that the appellant has rightly been held liable for entertainment tax and penalty in this matter; and no case for interference is made out. 16. As noticed, the basic questions requiring determination are as to whether the event in question had been an 'entertainment' as defined in the Act of 1958; and as to whether the payment received by the appellant for this event would qualify as the 'payment for admission' within the meaning of the Act of 1958? 17. In our considered view, a bare look at the definition of 'entertainment' in the Act of 1958 is sufficient to find that the expression has been defined in too wide and bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and entertainment naturally woven in it cannot be taken out. 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. 20. Coming to the question if there had been any element of 'payment for admission', we are again clearly of the view that from the facts projected, it remains rather indisputable that in relation to the event in question, the appellant received, inter alia, the sponsorship fees and advertisement charges. Therefore, the element of receiving 'payment for admission' is directly available per sub-clause (iv-a) of clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act of 1958 and does not appear requiring much debate. The suggestion about limited number of seats etc. are rather irrelevant in the face of such an indisputable fact situation. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
