Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STANDARD GAMES ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BHARUCHA S.P. (J)
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 467 JT 1996 (5) 624
1996 SCALE (4)463
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3322 OF 1996
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7749 OF 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5560 of 1984)
O R D E R
Leave granted in SLP (C) No.5560/84.
The admitted facts are that the appellant had installed
the video game consisting of a machine with a display screen
which is activated only by inserting a coin in the slot made
in the machine. Immediately thereon, the screen is lit up
and the game commences. The question is : whether it is an
entertainment within the meaning of Section 2(a) of U.P.
Entertainment and Betting Act. 1979 (for short, the ’Act’)?
The appellant’s own case is that the operator gets nothing
in return other than the pleasure he derives or enjoys from
exercising or building up his skill in operating the
machine. The Act defines "admission" under Section 2(a).
Section 2(g) defines "entertainment". Section 2(1)
(iii),(iv) and (v) in particular defines "Payment for
admission" with wide language. Notification dated July 24,
1981 was issued by the State exercising the power under
Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Act prescribing the rates of
admission.
Admittedly, since there is no enumeration in this
regard for the video game, clause (v) of the said
notification imposes 30% of the admission fee as
entertainment tax. The controversy raised in this case is
squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Geeta
Enterprises & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1983) 3 SCR
812]. This Court has considered the above provisions and had
held that charge of inserting the coin was realised only
from those who wanted to operate the video game at the rate
of 50 paise. For a slot lasting upto 30 seconds and it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
amounts to entertainment within the meaning of Section 2(g)
of the Act. Therefore, video games is exigible to entertain
tax. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is liable to pay
the entertainment tax. We do not find any illegality in the
view taken by the High Court warranting interference.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.