2013 (4) TMI 457 - HC - Indian Laws

Applicability/refund of Entertainment duty demand of NOC - whether the trade show constitutes an entertainment within the meaning of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 - petitioner submits that The annual IIJS and IIJS Signature events organized by the petitioner do not constitute entertainment and in order to constitute an entertainment an event must provide for amusement or enjoyment or something in the nature of a diversion or distraction. Petitioner has been paying entertainment duty on the sponsorship amount-received for IIJW in accordance with section 2(b)(viii) read with section 3. According to him IIJW is an event which is separate from IIJS. Held that - The fact that in a given case an exhibition involves a musical performance or a ramp show it constitutes an entertainment for the purposes of section 2(a). As the Supreme Court noted in the judgment in Geeta Enterprises 2008 (8) TMI 546 , the expression entertainment has various shades, aspects, forms and implications. The event must possess a public colour and also that if the exhibitor derives some benefit in terms of money, it would be deemed to be an entertainment. The identity of the person who derives pleasure or entertainment is wholly irrelevant. The event which is organized by the petitioner is evidently organized on a massive scale. The nature of the event, the character of the goods displayed, the benefit which is derived by the exhibitor in terms of money and the nature of the budget both of the organizer and the exhibitors are indicative of the fact that the exhibition in the present case to which admission is made against the payment of money falls within the definition of the expression entertainment in section 2(a). In the circumstances, there is no occasion to direct a refund. Since we have held against the petitioner on the issue of exigibility to tax under section 3 of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923, the direction which has been sought to the Commissioner of Police not to insist upon an NOC of the Additional Collector will not survive. Revisional remedy Held that - An objection was raised in the affidavit in reply to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that a revisional remedy is available under section 10A(3) to the State Government against the impugned order, we have entertained the petition in view of the fact that the petitioner had sought to question the jurisdiction of the State in levying and demanding entertainment duty. The petition shall accordingly stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the IIJS and IIJS Signature events organized by the petitioner constitute "entertainment" under section 2(a) of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923.
2. The legality of the order dated November 30, 2012, passed by the appellate authority under the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923.
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the amounts deposited for IIJS 2011, IIJS Signature 2012, and IIJS 2012.
4. Whether it is necessary for the petitioner to obtain an NOC from the Additional Collector for the purpose of obtaining the permission of the Commissioner of Police.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition of "Entertainment" under Section 2(a):
The court examined whether the IIJS and IIJS Signature events fall within the definition of "entertainment" as per section 2(a) of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923. The term "entertainment" includes any exhibition to which persons are admitted for payment. The court noted that the petitioner charges a high registration fee for these events, which are business-to-business shows not open to the general public. The court referenced the Supreme Court's interpretation in Geeta Enterprises v. State of U.P., which held that "entertainment" has a broad meaning, including any exhibition, performance, amusement, game, or sport to which persons are admitted for payment.

2. Legality of the Appellate Authority's Order:
The Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, in the order dated November 30, 2012, held that the events organized by the petitioner constitute "entertainment" under the Act. The Commissioner noted that the petitioner charges an entry fee and derives monetary benefits, thus falling within the ambit of "entertainment." The court upheld this view, stating that the events organized by the petitioner are large-scale exhibitions with significant financial transactions and benefits for exhibitors, thus meeting the criteria for "entertainment" under the Act.

3. Refund of Deposited Amounts:
The petitioner sought a refund of the amounts deposited for IIJS 2011, IIJS Signature 2012, and IIJS 2012, arguing that these events do not constitute "entertainment." However, the court, having upheld the appellate authority's order, found no merit in the petitioner's claim for a refund. The court noted that the petitioner had previously paid entertainment duty for similar events in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, and the State Government had granted exemptions in certain instances, indicating recognition of these events as "entertainment."

4. Necessity of NOC from Additional Collector:
The petitioner argued that it should not be required to obtain an NOC from the Additional Collector for obtaining permission from the Commissioner of Police to hold the events. The court, however, held that since the events fall within the definition of "entertainment," the requirement for an NOC from the Additional Collector is valid and necessary. The court dismissed the petitioner's request to exempt them from this requirement.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the appellate authority's order that the IIJS and IIJS Signature events constitute "entertainment" under the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923, and are subject to entertainment duty. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims for refunds and the exemption from obtaining an NOC from the Additional Collector. There shall be no order as to costs.