TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing a pool-game for which payment is necessary. It is not the case of the respondents that payment is made by the public for using the billiards tables for the pool-game. The billiards tables in the petitioner-Club would not be a game or sport to which persons are admitted for payment and hence, the same cannot be considered as entertainment for which duty is leviable under Section 3 of the Act. Since the action of the Entertainment Tax Inspector of initiating proceedings against the petitioner-club for payment of entertainment duty is bad in law, the impugned demand notices are hereby quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed. - Writ Petition No. 4 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2017 - Vasanti A. Naik and V.M. Deshpande, JJ. For the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the petitioner-Club. It is stated that though the billiards tables are meant for the physical and mental recreation for its members, the Entertainment Tax Inspector, Nagpur has served the impugned notices demanding entertainment duty of ₹ 2,000/- per month for each billiards table. According to the petitioner, the action on the part of the Entertainment Tax Inspector is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 3. Shri Harish Thakur, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Club took this Court through the various provisions of the Act to point out that the Entertainment Tax Inspector had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings for recovery of entertainment duty on the billiards table by considering that the petitioner-Club was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner-Club to its members on the principles of mutuality, entertainment duty cannot be levied under the provisions of the Act. A reference is also made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act to point out that no person other than the person who has to perform the duty in connection with an entertainment or a duty imposed upon him by any law, shall be admitted to any entertainment except with a valid printed ticket or complimentary ticket, which would be for a fee. It is submitted that on a combined reading of the provisions of Sections 2(a), 2(b-1), 2 (b-2), 3 and 4 of the Act, it is clear that the petitioner would not be liable to pay entertainment duty on the billiards tables, provided by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a facility, for which the members are admitted on payment. It is submitted that since the petitioner-Club is operating a 'pool parlour' where one or more billiards tables are provided for playing a pool-game by charging its members, no fault can be found in the action of the Entertainment Tax Inspector of demanding entertainment duty of ₹ 2,000/- per month for the billiards table. 5. The word entertainment is defined by the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Act. The relevant provisions of Section 2(a) of the Act provide that entertainment includes any exhibition, performance, amusement, game or sport to which persons are admitted for payment. In the instant case, we are concerned with the pool-game. Pool-game is define ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It would now be necessary to consider whether entertainment is provided by the petitioner-Club to the public, on payment. It is not the case of the respondents that the billiards tables in the club are permitted to be used by the public on payment. It is also not the case of the respondents that the members of the club, for whose entertainment and recreation the billiards tables are provided, are required to pay separately for using the billiards tables. On a reading of the rules of the petitioner-Club, it appears that only the regular members of the club, their guests, and the service members are permitted to use the facilities provided by the club. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the members of the petitioner-Club mutually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... public for using the billiards tables for the pool-game. The billiards tables in the petitioner-Club would not be a game or sport to which persons are admitted for payment and hence, the same cannot be considered as entertainment for which duty is leviable under Section 3 of the Act, more so when the pool-game or tables do not satisfy the tests as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment in the case of M/s. Geeta Enterprises (supra). Apart from the fact that the aforesaid game in the club does not contain a public colour, the further test that the exhibitor should derive some benefit in terms of money even if the admission to the hall is free, is also not satisfied as the club is not benefited in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
