2007 (11) TMI 398 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether entertainment tax was payable by the appellant in respect of a fashion show held at Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh on July 9, 2000 at St. Andrews Inter College for the selection of Mr. Gorakhpur and Miss Gorakhpur ? Held that - Appeal dismissed. We are inclined to agree with Mr. Dwivedi that the fashion show was held with full knowledge that entertainment tax was payable in respect thereof and that though tickets may not have been issued in respect of the programme and only invitation cards had been issued, the same was merely a subterfuge for the purpose of evading and/ or avoiding payment of entertainment tax. It is difficult to believe that the fashion show was held with the object of educating prospective students who would be interested in joining the Institute of Art, Fashion Designing and Modelling and was, therefore, exempt under section 11(3) of the 1979 Act, as the advertisement referred to above indicates the object of the show was to invite people to come and watch the new world of glamour and modelling and to see the world of exotic fashion in Gorakhpur itself.

Summary

Issues:
Entertainment tax liability for a fashion show held without permission.

Analysis:
The case involved the question of whether entertainment tax was payable for a fashion show held without permission. The appellant, who claimed to be only the choreographer, argued that the show was not entertainment within the meaning of the law and was organized for charitable and educational purposes exempted under the relevant Act. The District Magistrate, however, found that the appellant had collected significant amounts from spectators and organizers, concluding that entertainment tax was due. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that the fashion show was meant for entertainment, not education. The appellant challenged this in the Supreme Court, reiterating that the show was competitive and organized for publicity regarding an educational institute. The Court agreed with the findings of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal and upholding the liability for entertainment tax.

The appellant contended that he was not the organizer of the fashion show but merely a choreographer, shifting the responsibility to other individuals associated with the event. However, the District Magistrate and the High Court found that the appellant had masterminded the show and collected funds, leading to the conclusion that the show was held for entertainment purposes. The Court observed that the advertisement for the event highlighted glamour and exotic fashion, indicating an entertainment focus rather than an educational one. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Court agreed with the lower courts' findings and upheld the liability for entertainment tax.

In the judgment, the Court emphasized that the fashion show was organized with the knowledge that entertainment tax was payable, even if tickets were not sold directly. The Court rejected the appellant's claim of exemption under the Act, noting that the primary purpose of the show was entertainment, as evident from the advertisement promoting glamour and modeling. Ultimately, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the decisions of the District Magistrate and the High Court, dismissing the appeal without costs. Additionally, the Court criticized certain irrelevant statements made by the appellant in the writ petition before the High Court, highlighting their lack of relevance to the main issue in the appeal.