Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
GEETA ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/09/1983
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
THAKKAR, M.P. (J)
CITATION:
1983 AIR 1098 1983 SCR (3) 812
1983 SCC (4) 202 1983 SCALE (2)275
ACT:
Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937-
Sec. 2(3- Definition of Entertainment-Extremely wide-Video
shows fall in the ambit of s. 2(3) and are exigible to
entertainment tax under sec. 3. When a show would be
entertainment-Test laid down. .
Words and phrases- ’Entertainment’,
HEADNOTE:
The petitioners opened video parlour by installing
electronic machine with video screen and permitted persons
to enter the premises without any charge to view a show on
the video which consisted mainly of sports, games etc.
played on the screen of the video. The show lasting upto 30
seconds was operated by inserting SO paise coin into the
video machine by an operator from the audience who wanted to
operate the video machine. While one High Court was of the
view that-the video games were included in the definition of
entertainment and were liable to entertainment tax, two
other High Courts were of the opposite view. The petitioners
filed the present writ petitions contending that in view of
the manner in which the video games were shown and also in
view of the fact that these games, sports etc. involved a
great amount of skill for the operator, the video games
would not be an entertainment within the meaning of sub-sec,
(3) of sec. 2.
Dismissing the petitions,
^
HELD: The video show is an entertainment under soc.
2(1) and therefore exigible to tax under sec. 3. [821 A-B]
A perusal of the various shades, aspects, forms and
implications of the word ’entertainment as defined in
different books and dictionaries clearly leads to an
irresistible inference that the word ‘entertainment’ has
been used in a very wide sense so as to include within its
ambit, entertainment of any kind including one which may be
purely educative. Sub-sec. (3) of sec. 2 itself by using the
word ’entertainment as "any exhibitional, performance,
amusement, game or sport to which persons are admitted for
payment" has extended the scope of entertainment to
expressly include any kind of amusement, game or sport. When
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
a number of people without any admission fee enter a hall
for entertainment and enjoy the games it becomes a public
show and the hall where the video is played becomes a public
hall and amounts therefore to a
813
public exhibition which is squarely covered by the first
limb (exhibitional) of the definition of entertainment in
sub-sec. (3) of sec. 2. [817 A-B, E-E]
Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana,
[1979] 1 S.C.R. 545; Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (4th Edn;
vol. 2. p. 916); Words and Phrases, judicially Defined (vol.
2, p. 206.207); Words and Phrases (Permanent Edn; vol. 14A,
p. 353); Reader’s Digest Family Word Finder at p. 264;
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary; and Concise
English Dictionary by Hayward and Sparkes, referred to.
In the present case by operating the video, the
operator of the video pays 50 paise per 30 seconds for
playing the games, sports and other kind of performances
which are shown on the machine and which can be watched by
interested spectators. The circumstances that no admission
fee is charged from viewers seeing the video by itself,
however, cannot defuse or alter the kind of entertainment
deprived by the person who pays for playing the games. The
operator of video would deprive pleasure and be entertained
regardless of whether the possesses skill or not. If he
possesses skill he may derive more pleasure on less payment
otherwise he will have to pay but he will derive pleasure
all the same. That he would not pay money if it did not
thrill, amuse, and entertain him, is obvious. Besides, the
game brings a substantial return for the person who makes
available these facilities. [817 C-E, G-H]
Gopal Krishna Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors.,
All L J, 1982 page 607 approved.
Harris Wilson v. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors., A.T.R.
1982 M.P. at page 171 and H. T. Gursahaney v. State & Anr.,
1982 (2)-vol. XIII (2), CLR 526 overruled.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 1731, 1915,
2277, 3691, 7097, 9428/81 and 2121, 7430, 7431, 8349, 9319
of 1982.
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India)
K. C. Dua, for the Petitioners.
B. P. Maheshwari, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. What appears to be a short and simple
point has been the subject matter of a serious divergence of
judicial opinion between two leading High Courts of our
country, namely the Allahabad High Court and Madhya Pradesh
High Court taking contrary views which have to be resolved
by us in the present writ
814
petitions.. The short point involved in these petitions
turns upon the interpretation of the word "Entertainment" as
used in section 2(3) of the Uttar Pradesh entertainment and
Betting Tax Act, 1937 (hereinafter to be referred to as the
’Act’).
The facts of these cases lie within a very narrow
compass and may be stated thus:-
The first petitioner is a partnership firm which had
launched an entertaining and ingenious enterprise for the
running of a Video Parlour at 3, Chauhan Market, Delhi gate,
Agra. The modus operandi of the petitioner was as follows. A
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
machine with a video screen is installed in the parlour of
the petitioner. The petitioner permits persons to enter the
premises without any charge to view a show on the video
which consisted mainly of sports games etc. played On the
screen of the video. According to the petitioner he did not
Charge any admission fee but the Electronic Machines
imported from Japan having educational value for persons
playing the games were meant to provide educational
entertainment by showing sea warfare, battle field space
warfare sports and many other things which were likely to
provide both education and entertainment to the viewers,
particularly to young children. The mechanism for playing
the machine was so designed that a coin of 50 naya paise was
to be inserted into a strong box built within the machine,
the keys of which were with the manufacturer. After the show
was over a representative of the manufacturing company would
come, open the box, collect the money and pay the share of
the hirer-petitioner out of the collected sale proceeds. It
was further alleged that no admission or gate entry fee was
charged for entering the House or Parlour to watch or play
the game or for entering into the adjacent snack shops. The
shows were operated by an operator from the audience and SO
paise coin was inserted into the aforesaid box before the
show could start. The charge of inserting the coin was
realised only from those who wanted to operate the video
machine at the rate of SO paise for a show lasting up to 30
seconds.
The petitioners thus contended that the manner in which
the game was shown to the viewers and operated by the person
playing the games was not an entertainment within the
meaning of section 2 (3) of the Act. To Buttress this
argument the petitioners cited the example of several States
where identical shows were not exigible to entertainment
tax. It is manifest that the manner and the mechanism
815
by which the operation of the video was done would be
eligible to tax could not be determined merely because some
other States did not choose to charge any entertainment tax
for the video shows.
The crux of the matter is as to whether or not the
show, the details of which have been described above falls
within the four corners of the expression "entertainment".
Sub-section 3 of section 2 of the Act may be extracted
thus:-
"entertainment" includes any exhibitional,
performance, amusement, game or short to which
persons are admitted for Payment."
It is true that a part of the video show was of some
educational value but that by itself would be no answer to
the application of Sub-section 3. The definition as
extracted above is extremely wide so as to take within its
fold and includes the kind of show which was displayed by
the petitioners in this case.
Before explaining the section we would like to
ascertain the correct meaning and import of the word
’entertainment’ (which is neither a scientific nor a
technical term) as used in the popular sense or as
understood in common parlance. This was held by this Court
in the case of Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd v. State of
Haryana.(1) In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (4th Edn, vol.
2. p. 916) the word ’entertainment’ has been defined thus:
"Entertainment ... for a PUBLIC OR SPECIAL
occasion"... is an entertainment in the sense of a
gathering of persons for entertainment."
"Entertainment" (Small Lotteries and Gaming
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
Act 1956 (c. 45, s. 4 (1) included a tombola drive
alone with out accompanying festivities.
"The monologue or patter of a comedian, even
if delivered at an entertainment provided by an
institution whose activities are partly
educational, was held to be a "variety
entertainment" within the meaning of the Section."
816
Similarly in words and Phrases, Judicially Defined (vol. 2,
p. 206-207) the word entertainment has been defined thus :-
"Entertainment is something connected with
the enjoyment of refreshment-rooms, tables, and
the like. lt is something beyond refreshment; it
is the accommodation provided, whether that
includes a musical or other amusement or not".
Similarly in Words and Phrases (Permanent Edn; Vol. 14A, p.
353) ’entertainment’ has been defined thus:-
"An entertainment is a source or means of
amusement; a diverting performance, especially a
public performance, as a concert, drama, or the
like."
"Entertainment" denotes that which selves for
amusement, and "amusement" is defined as a
pleasure able occupation of the senses, or that
which furnishes it, as dancing, sports, or music."
Likewise in Reader’s Digest Family Word Finder at p-263.
’entertainment’ has been defined thus:
"Entertainment amusement, diversion, distraction,
recreation, fun, play, good time, pastime, novelty;
pleasure, enjoyment, satisfaction."
In Webster’s Third New International Dictionary the word
’entertainment’ has been defined at p. 757 thus:-
"entertainment - the act of diverting,
amusing, or causing someone’s time to pass
agreeably.
"Something that diverts, amuses, or occupies
the attention agreeably.
A public performance designed to divert or amuse.
Similarly in the Concise English Dictionary by Hayward and
Sparkes the word entertainment’ has been defined thus:-
"the art of entertaining, amusing or
diverting, the pleasure afforded to the mind by
anything interesting, amusement, other performance
intended to amuse."
817
A perusal of the various shades, aspects, forms and
implications of the word ’entertainment’ as defined in the
aforesaid books clearly leads to an irresistible inference
that the word ’entertainment’ has been used in a very wide
sense so as to include within its ambit, ’entertainment of
any kind including one which may be purely educative. Sub-
section 3 itself by using the word ’entertainment’ as "any
exhibitional, performance, amusement, game or sport to which
persons are admitted for payment" has extended the scope of
entertainment to expressly include any kind of amusement,
game or sport. It cannot be disputed in the present case
that by operating the video, By the operator of the video
pays SO paise per 30 seconds for playing the games, sports
and other kind of performances which are shown on the
machine and which can be watched by interested spectators.
It was vehemently argued by the Codasel for the petitioners
that no admission fee is charged from viewers seeing the
video. That circumstances by itself, however, cannot defuse
or alter the kind of entertainment derived by the person who
pays for playing the games. That he would not pay money if
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
it did not thrill, amuse, and entertain him, is obvious.
Translated into actual practice, if the operators who are
from the audience play the video for one hour the amount of
money collected would be Rs. 60 and if the video is played
for 3-4 hours a day, the total amount comes to Rs. 180-240
per day which is doubtless a substantial amount for showing
the video by way of an entertainment because when a number
of people without any admission fee enter a hall for
entertainment and enjoy the games it becomes a public show
and the hall where the video is played becomes a public hall
and amounts therefore to a public exhibition which is
squarely covered by the first limb (exhibitional) of the
definition of entertainment in Sub-section 3 extracted
above.
It was next argued that to play these games, sports
etc. involves a great amount of skill for the operator and
therefore it would not be an entertainment within the
meaning of Sub-section 3. This argument appears to be
without any substance because he would drive pleasure and be
entertained regardless of whether he possesses skill or not.
If he possesses skill he may derive more pleasure on less
payment otherwise he will have to pay but he will derive
pleasure all the same. Besides, the game brings a
substantial return for the person who makes available these
facilities. In these circumstances it is impossible for us
to hold that such an exhibition falls beyond the purview of
the word entertainment as envisaged in sub-section 3.
818
Furthermore, clauses regarding payment for
admission includes:- .
"Any payment for a programme or synopsis of
an entertainment."
"Any payment for any purpose whatsoever
connected with an entertainment which a person is
required to make as a condition of attending or
continuing to attend the entertainment in addition
to the payment, if any, for admission to the
entertainment."
Section 3 which is the charging section runs
thus:-
"There shall be levied and paid on all
payments for admission to any entertainment a tax
(hereinafter referred to as entertainment tax)."
Section 3 of tho Act which has been extracted above,
clearly applies to the facts of this case because here the
payment is based on lump sum basis calculated at the rate of
SO paise per 30 seconds.
Thus, on a consideration of the legal connotation of
the word ’entertainment as defined in various books, and
other circumstances of the case as also on a true
interpretation of the word as defined in s. 2 (3) of the
Act, it follows that the show must pass the following tests
to fall within the ambit of the aforesaid section:
1. that the show, performance, game or sport,
etc. must contain a public colour in that the
show should be open to public in a hall,
theatre or any other place where members of
the public are invited or attend the show.
2. that the show may provide any kind of
amusement whether sport, game or even a
performance which requires some amount of
skill.
In some of the cases, it has been held that
even holding of a tombola in a club hall
amounts to entertainment although the playing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
of tombola does, to some extent, involves a
little skill.
819
3. that even if admission to the hall may be
free but if the exhibitor derives some
benefit in terms of money it would be deemed
to be an entertainment.
4. that the duration of the show or the identity
of the person who operates the machine and
derives pleasure or entertained or that the
operator who pays him self feels
entertainment is wholly irrelevant in judging
the actual meaning of the word
’entertainment’ as used in s. 2 (3) of the
Act. So also the fact that the income derived
from the show is shared by one or more
persons who run the show.
The Allahabad High Court in the case of Gopal Krishna
Agarwal, v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors(1) which was also
a case under the Act, held that entertainment tax was
leviable on video games. The High Court has very carefully
analysed sub-section 3 of s. 2 of the Act and the import of
the word ’entertainment’ and observes as follows:-
"The context in which the word ’includes, has
been used in the definition clauses of the Act
does not indicate that the Legislature intended to
put a restriction or a limitation on words like
’entertainment’ or ’admission to an entertainment’
or ’payment for admission’. With the advance of
civilization and scientific developments new forms
of entertainment have come into existence. Video
Games are probably the latest additions to the
means of entertainment. These games require skill
and precision as so many other games do. They are
a source of amusement and enjoyment to those who
participate in the games. Others who stand by and
watch also derive some pleasure and amusement
though not to the same degree. Admission to the
premises where the Video Machines are installed
may be free but payment is admittedly made if one
wants to play the game. The money charged for use
of the Video Machine is an admission to
entertainment and the payment made by the person
who uses the Machine is the payment for admission.
In any case it is a payment for admission. In any
case it is a payment
820
connected with entertainment which a person is
required to make as a condition of attending the
entertainment
We find ourselves in entire agreement with the
observations of the Court and fully approve of the ratio
decendi of this case . The Allahabad High Court has given
almost the same reasons as given by us in the earlier part
of the judgment.
It is true that in the case of Harrish Wilson v. State
of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.(1) the Madhya Pradesh High Court
had taken a contrary view and held as follows:-
"Therefore, what entertains a person in the
video games parlour is his own performance and not
the exhibition, performance, amusement, game or
any sport offered by the petitioners. The payment
made by a person to another to provide him with
tools for deriving pleasure from his own
performance with the help of the tools can not be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
held to be payment to that another for ’admission
to entertainment’ as contemplated by the Act. In
our opinion, therefore, it cannot be held that the
petitioners receive ’payment for admission to
entertainment’, when they collect amounts inserted
by the persons in the slot."
And the Gujarat High Court in N. T. Gursahaney v. State
and Anr.(2) has taken a similar view. Apart from the wrong
line of reasoning adopted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court
it seems to have completely overlooked certain important
aspects of the question which we have dealt with in our
judgment. Moreover even the language of the charging
provision of the Act which fell for interpretation in that
case does not appear to be absolutely in pari-materia with
the language of the various sections of the U. P. Act. Even
so the pivotal conclusions derived by the Madhya Pradesh
High Court and the Gujarat High Court do not appeal to us.
The mere fact that payment is not made at the time of
entering the premises is irrelevant. Payment made at a
later, stage by inserting a coin is nonetheless for being
admitted to a place of entertainment. Thus the fee being
charged in a different manner at a different stage is in any
case for providing entertainment. We, therefore, with due
respect to the High Courts, disapprove their decisions.
821
For the reasons given above we hold that the decision
of the Allahabad High Court is correct and we hereby over
rule the decisions of the Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh High
Courts. In our opinion, the video show in the instant case
is clearly exigible to tax under section 3 of the Act. The
Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to
costs.
H.S.K. Petitions dismissed.
822