9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the liability of a private limited company to pay entertainment tax for its discotheque under the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937 as extended to Union Territory of Delhi. The company challenged the constitutional validity of the Act, alleging it violated its right to carry on business. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Liability to pay entertainment tax The company operated a discotheque named 'Pussycat Discotheque' within its hotel, charging an entry fee from customers. The Entertainment Tax Officer held that the discotheque fell within the definition of 'entertainment' under the Act and levied entertainment tax. The company challenged this decision, arguing that the discotheque did not provide entertainment as defined under the Act. Issue 2: Interpretation of 'entertainment' under the Act The Act defines 'entertainment' broadly to include any performance or amusement for which payment is made. The Supreme Court in a previous case laid down tests to determine if an activity falls within this definition. The Court applied these tests to the company's discotheque and found that the activities, including providing a dance floor, recorded music, and an element of amusement for customers, constituted 'entertainment' under the Act. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the company's petition, upholding the decision to levy entertainment tax on the discotheque. It found that the activities at the discotheque satisfied the definition of 'entertainment' under the Act, as per the tests laid down by the Supreme Court. The Court also noted that similar judgments had upheld the payment of entertainment tax on similar establishments. The company's argument that the Act violated constitutional rights was not pursued during the proceedings.
|
